The Clintons have jumped the shark.

[peacock2121]

However, I am pretty sure that there is a much lower percentage of black Africans in Canada than there are in Kenya.

I know I should just let this drop, but it is truly difficult for me to follow your logic. Obama's mother did not meet Obama's father in Kenya. She met him in Hawaii.

Let me make this simple. .

I wonder how many people stop listening (in this case, reading), after this (or something as condescending as this) is said (or typed).

[MarleysGh0st]

I know I should just let this drop, but it is truly difficult for me to follow your logic. Obama's mother did not meet Obama's father in Kenya. She met him in Hawaii.

Let me make this simple. .

I wonder how many people stop listening (in this case, reading), after this (or something as condescending as this) is said (or typed).

I wonder how many people really didn't understand the hypothetical Appa began with, instead of being deliberately literal so that they could grab the opportunity for some Appabaiting?

Even though that's generally accepted as good sport, I can see how he might get tired of it.

[peacock2121]

Let me make this simple. .

I wonder how many people stop listening (in this case, reading), after this (or something as condescending as this) is said (or typed).

I wonder how many people really didn't understand the hypothetical Appa began with, instead of being deliberately literal so that they could grab the opportunity for some Appabaiting?

Even though that's generally accepted as good sport, I can see how he might get tired of it.

LOL - funny

One never has to take the bait.

Interesting study to see who gets 'blamed' - the one who baits or the one who takes the bait.

[wbtravis007]

I see that nobody's weighed in on whether this is a sea-changing event. I really do think that this has done them in. They just don't realize it yet.

Just a gut feeling, but a strong one. I've been supporting Obama just because I think there's a risk that Hillary would lose in the general. I've said all along that I hadn't even considered the question of whom I'd rather have as President between them. The more important question, to me, has been who gives us the best shot in November. I know, I know. We could sit here and argue all day about it. We're just guessing.

Still, though, my guess is that Obama will beat McCain's ass like a drum (albeit one with a sagging skin that's full of mashed potatoes and cottage cheese). And I'm not just basing my guess on the wookus rule either.

Everybody knows that it's going to be up to the super delegates. The remainder of the campaign boils down to trying to be able to make the best case to them. I don't think that Hillary's chances of winning have been all that great, but nobody's been able to say for sure that they have no reasonable shot at it.

I think that's changed now. I've overlooked or gotten over quite a bit all this time to continue to count myself as a supporter of the Clintons -- just like everyone else who supports them has. No more, though. Something's happened here that's different.

I've said before that I'd be willing to do her. Okay, okay, part of that is just because I've always been kind of partial to girls and women who need glasses. Still, though. Anyway, I wouldn't be willing to do her now. Wouldn't want to give her the satisfaction. And, I don't want her to be President. Period.

I don't think that this stuff is going to make much difference in the way people vote. I do think, though, that enough of the super delegates -- whether they realize it right now or not -- will share my visceral response, that something will crystalize on an important level that will prevent them from being wooed by the Clinton camp.

It'll be interesting to see how long it takes the Clintons to realize that the party's over.

[wintergreen48]

I see that nobody's weighed in on whether this is a sea-changing event. I really do think that this has done them in. They just don't realize it yet.

Just a gut feeling, but a strong one. I've been supporting Obama just because I think there's a risk that Hillary would lose in the general. I've said all along that I hadn't even considered the question of whom I'd rather have as President between them. The more important question, to me, has been who gives us the best shot in November. I know, I know. We could sit here and argue all day about it. We're just guessing.

Still, though, my guess is that Obama will beat McCain's ass like a drum (albeit one with a sagging skin that's full of mashed potatoes and cottage cheese). And I'm not just basing my guess on the wookus rule either.

Everybody knows that it's going to be up to the super delegates. The remainder of the campaign boils down to trying to be able to make the best case to them. I don't think that Hillary's chances of winning have been all that great, but nobody's been able to say for sure that they have no reasonable shot at it.

I think that's changed now. I've overlooked or gotten over quite a bit all this time to continue to count myself as a supporter of the Clintons -- just like everyone else who supports them has. No more, though. Something's happened here that's different.

I've said before that I'd be willing to do her. Okay, okay, part of that is just because I've always been kind of partial to girls and women who need glasses. Still, though. Anyway, I wouldn't be willing to do her now. Wouldn't want to give her the satisfaction. And, I don't want her to be President. Period.

I don't think that this stuff is going to make much difference in the way people vote. I do think, though, that enough of the super delegates -- whether they realize it right now or not -- will share my visceral response, that something will crystalize on an important level that will prevent them from being wooed by the Clinton camp.

It'll be interesting to see how long it takes the Clintons to realize that the party's over.

Very insightful, except maybe for the part about being 'willing to do her' (although, of all the candidates this year, I would agree that she is the only one I would have even consider, well, doing, if I were to consider, um, doing anyone who had not won my heart, and none of these candidates has done that).

But one thing that I think is missed in your post is that, when you get right down to it, nothing has really changed in how the Clintons act: you see what has happened as a 'sea change' event, but really, is it any different from anything else that they have done? This has been a consistent pattern with them for decades, this is who they are.

A person may agree with their 'policies' (as you do) and may support them (as you apparently no longer do), or a person may disagree with their policies and oppose them (as many do), but the fact of the matter is that what you call a 'sea change' is part of who and what they are, and who and what they always have been, and that, I think, is what accounts for much of the opposition/animosity that has long surrounded them. When you get right down to it, Hillary's policies (whatever they are) are not significantly different from those of Obama (whatever they are); if anything, Hillary is politically closer (well, fractionally closer) to members of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy than Obama, and certainly the relative 'experience' that Hillary and Obama possess is about the same (they've both held political office for about the same amount of time; I don't count 'married to a President' or 'married to a southern Governor' as 'experience' that qualifies you for the Presidency), so pretty clearly there is something else that drives the strength of the opposition to Hillary, and it is probably not the fact that she has to squat to pee (and I'm not so sure that she does): her biggest problem is that she is just plain nasty, and unlike Bill she doesn't the s charm that can make that nastiness easier to take.

I think that Obama actually has a lot more negatives than Hillary, from the standpoint of people who might be expected to oppose a Democrat or a left-leaning person of any party, but whatever else he might be, he is not a !@#$%^&*, and I think that people respond to that.

[wbtravis007]

wintergreen wrote:

But one thing that I think is missed in your post is that, when you get right down to it, nothing has really changed in how the Clintons act: you see what has happened as a 'sea change' event, but really, is it any different from anything else that they have done? This has been a consistent pattern with them for decades, this is who they are.

I'm sure that there were plenty of crappy scenes and shows before Fonzi jumped the shark, but there were people who thought that it was still worth watching. Maybe some of them slapped their foreheads and said: "D'oh! I've been watching a really crappy show all this time! What was I thinking?" But not everyone.

I have thought about whether my reaction here is more a matter of a light going off and revealing something that I hadn't seen before, but I really don't think that's the case. I'm not saying that she (or he) is all that bad, and don't agree with the characterization of her (or them) that you've expressed from time to time.

For me, it's just a matter of feeling that their worst traits have gotten worse, and that they are being manifested in ways that won't let me get over them this time. It wouldn't surprise me, though, if one of these days they look back and regret this -- (whether they'd publicly admit it or not).

[SportsFan68]

Even though that's generally accepted as good sport, I can see how he might get tired of it.

JMHO, Marley, I think you get tired of it. That's not a bad thing, that's just the way it is. Some people are Friends of the Library (and blessings be upon your heads -- thank you!) and some are MLB NL Champions fans! GO ROCKIES!!!

I love baseball.

Sorry, what were we talking about?

[Beebs52]

Just a gut feeling, but a strong one. I've been supporting Obama just because I think there's a risk that Hillary would lose in the general. I've said all along that I hadn't even considered the question of whom I'd rather have as President between them. The more important question, to me, has been who gives us the best shot in November. I know, I know. We could sit here and argue all day about it. We're just guessing.

Still, though, my guess is that Obama will beat McCain's ass like a drum (albeit one with a sagging skin that's full of mashed potatoes and cottage cheese). And I'm not just basing my guess on the wookus rule either.

It's interesting that you and, of course, many Democrats and Republicans, operate on the same basis, pragmatically, on who has the best chance to win. It encourages me that you are no different than most of the rest of us. I used to think you weren't, politically. I know better now. I'm sorry you're disenchanted with Hillary finally, as I've been since the 90's for many reasons. But, our early loves sometimes trip us up.

I don't think McCain's ass will be beat like a drum, for a variety of reasons, many not worthy of considering, actually. I'm not enamored of the Republican's candidate, but I'm less enamored with the Dem's. However, I think the candidate will be beat for sad, anachronistic reasons and not because of issues.

Rock on.

[earendel]

I don't think McCain's ass will be beat like a drum, for a variety of reasons, many not worthy of considering, actually. I'm not enamored of the Republican's candidate, but I'm less enamored with the Dem's. However, I think the candidate will be beat for sad, anachronistic reasons and not because of issues.

Rock on.

If the election had been late last year, before the economy started going south, I'd have been willing to wager real money that the Democrat (whoever it was) would win. Now, however, the war in Iraq has fallen off the public's radar - a recent poll showed that people aren't paying as much attention to Iraq as was the case six months ago. I also think that the Democrats are going to come out of the convention with some serious rifts that will be hard to mend.

[silverscreenselect]

Just a gut feeling, but a strong one. I've been supporting Obama just because I think there's a risk that Hillary would lose in the general. I've said all along that I hadn't even considered the question of whom I'd rather have as President between them. The more important question, to me, has been who gives us the best shot in November. I know, I know. We could sit here and argue all day about it. We're just guessing.

In 1976, Jimmy Carter led Gerald Ford (who was tied to Nixon and involved with a major convention fight with Reagan) by 33 points after the Democratic convention. In 1988, Michael Dukakis led Bush Sr. by 19 points after the Democratic convention. Carter won by an eyelash after Ford made a major gaffe during the debate reinforcing his Chevy Chase stumblebum image. And we all know what happened to Dukakis. In 1976 there was no Republican slime noise machine and in 1988 just the beginnings of one.

Looking at electability now by looking at polls is like trying to pick the Super Bowl champion two weeks into the season (when the Giants were one of the worst teams results wise in the league).

The Republicans pitched the Clintons as evil incarnate for a very good reason. The Clintons were the only Democratic politicians in thirty years who figured out how to win the presidency from them and a mixture of natural resentment at that fact plus a desire to destroy their enemy has fueled that image.

Why many Democrats bought into that is harder to understand. I do understand being upset at Bill about the Lewinsky affair and at both of them for the failure of the health care initiative (which at least they tried, as opposed to every other administration in history). But for many people on the left it's a resentment that the Clintons are somewhat more mainstream than they would like Democratic politicians to be. Frankly, they would rather have "heroic" fighting losers like Howard Dean than pragmatic winners. The idea that 80% of something is better than 100% of nothing seems to have escaped them.

Barack Obama is a very shallow but very charismatic politiican whose obvious charms have caused a lot of people on the left to overlook both his character flaws and the whole idea that his theme of bringing people together is exactly what the Clintons did successfully when they were in office, namely maneuver the Republicans to get a lot but not all of what they wanted. The only difference is that Obama is asking people to take him on faith that he will accomplish this through his charm. On the issues, Obama's record is very similar to Hillary Clinton's, and there's no indication that would change in office. However, his "success" in getting bipartisan support for measures is largely a result of his being allowed to cosponsor a lot of bills in Illinois that he had very little to do with, and the Illinois legislature is a lot less partisan than Congress.

The downside of Obama is tremendous, and the latest revleation about his pastor who gives sermons in which he proclaims "God d**n America" won't play well with the general public, nor will the Rezko connections once it's played up that Obama went "buddies" on a real estate deal with a guy who took state money, with Obama's help, and build shoddy housing that forced poor people to live in the Chicago winter with no heat.

Those issues haven't gotten much play yet, but you can rest assured that the day Obama clinches the nomination, the day those scandals and probably a lot of others (I'd wager there are some other shady characters backing Obama as well) will be blaring all over the place on right wing radio and Fox News. The only thing keeping them somewhat in check right now is Hillary's continued presence in the campaign.

Obama is the first black politician who has gotten to the point where he can be taken seriously as a candidate. That's an enormous step forward. However, he's an old style Chicago thug with a slick veneer. And that's not so good.

[TheConfessor]

SSS, you've made it quite clear in several posts how much you love Hillary and hate Obama for getting in her way. Your post above appears to make a lot of sense until you go off the deep end in the last paragraph and call Obama a "thug," which seems to come out of left field, with no basis for using such a slur. Care to elaborate or retract the name calling?

[wbtravis007]

bbk said:

It's interesting that you and, of course, many Democrats and Republicans, operate on the same basis, pragmatically, on who has the best chance to win. It encourages me that you are no different than most of the rest of us. I used to think you weren't, politically. I know better now. I'm sorry you're disenchanted with Hillary finally, as I've been since the 90's for many reasons. But, our early loves sometimes trip us up.

I don't know what I said to give you the impression that you say that you had of me.

I didn't mean to suggest that I've loved Hillary. I've been an Obama supporter. I've always viewed her as a mixed bag. Still do. I've never understood the take on her that so many share -- the she's the devil incarnate or "nasty" (or whatever) with no redeeming qualities. That's always seemed really weird to me, and it still does.

Just because I say now that I don't want her to be President, and that I wouldn't do her now becasuse I wouldn't want to give her the satisfaction, doesn't mean that I'm joining the nut-case Hillary haters.

[silverscreenselect]

SSS, you've made it quite clear in several posts how much you love Hillary and hate Obama for getting in her way. Your post above appears to make a lot of sense until you go off the deep end in the last paragraph and call Obama a "thug," which seems to come out of left field, with no basis for using such a slur. Care to elaborate or retract the name calling?

Obama is an old-style Chicago politician in terms of being willing to use any ruthless tactics to win, as evidenced by the way he got his opposition diqqualified in his first state senate run and how he managed to steamroll his way into "sponsoring" a lot of bills in the Ill state senate to boost his election credibility.

It's funny how very damaging information about Blair Hull and that Ryan guy seemed to surface at the exact right time to torpedo their campaigns.

Because he puts on a show about new politics, hope and change he is able to mask what he does to a certain extent. And, to be fair, he's far from the worst Chicago politician out there in terms of corruption or hardball politics. I for one am having a real tough time figuring out how Illinois' governor is avoiding taking major heat for his involvement in the Rezko mess, which is much more extensive than Obama's.

However, Obama is the only old-style Chicago politician running for president and the only candidate running for president essentially based on on thing, an image that he is somehow above politics as usual. It's a massive con with the Democratic party in particular and the American public in general that will be the victims.

And if anyone is wondering, this is not just posturing on my part. If Obama is the Democratic candidate, I will vote for McCain in the general election and hope that the debacle that the Democratic establishment is gleefully bringing down upon itself serves the purpose of cleaning house and enabling the party to rebuild itself in the right way.

[wbtravis007]

sss said:

Looking at electability now by looking at polls is like trying to pick the Super Bowl champion two weeks into the season (when the Giants were one of the worst teams results wise in the league).


Agreed. I'm not looking at the polls, and I wasn't when I predicted some time back that Obama would win (when was thirty or however many points behind Hillary), either.

Your examples of Carter's and Dukakis' vanishing leads demonstrate how those early polls are not accurate. If your trying to suggest that they are always or even usually skewed to favor Democrats, though, I think you have fallen short of demonstrating that so far.

The Republicans pitched the Clintons as evil incarnate for a very good reason. The Clintons were the only Democratic politicians in thirty years who figured out how to win the presidency from them and a mixture of natural resentment at that fact plus a desire to destroy their enemy has fueled that image.

You mean, like getting Perot to run?

I agree that the Clintons are a formidable political force. That's why, until now, I haven't totally counted them out this time. For Obama to put the whoopin' on them that he has is very impressive. That's one of the reasons that I totally disagree with you about your take on Obama. In some ways you seem to not be willing to recognize the magnitude of that accomplishment.

I'll put money down right now that Obama will be our next President. Any takers?

[wbtravis007]

sss said:

And if anyone is wondering, this is not just posturing on my part. If Obama is the Democratic candidate, I will vote for McCain in the general election and hope that the debacle that the Democratic establishment is gleefully bringing down upon itself serves the purpose of cleaning house and enabling the party to rebuild itself in the right way.

I hope that you will come to your senses before then. I know that you're frustrated right now.

[kusch]

sss said:

Looking at electability now by looking at polls is like trying to pick the Super Bowl champion two weeks into the season (when the Giants were one of the worst teams results wise in the league).


Agreed. I'm not looking at the polls, and I wasn't when I predicted some time back that Obama would win (when was thirty or however many points behind Hillary), either.

Your examples of Carter's and Dukakis' vanishing leads demonstrate how those early polls are not accurate. If your trying to suggest that they are always or even usually skewed to favor Democrats, though, I think you have fallen short of demonstrating that so far.

The Republicans pitched the Clintons as evil incarnate for a very good reason. The Clintons were the only Democratic politicians in thirty years who figured out how to win the presidency from them and a mixture of natural resentment at that fact plus a desire to destroy their enemy has fueled that image.

You mean, like getting Perot to run?

I agree that the Clintons are a formidable political force. That's why, until now, I haven't totally counted them out this time. For Obama to put the whoopin' on them that he has is very impressive. That's one of the reasons that I totally disagree with you about your take on Obama. In some ways you seem to not be willing to recognize the magnitude of that accomplishment.

I'll put money down right now that Obama will be our next President. Any takers?

Put me down for $25. If he is, I will make a $25 donation to a charity of your choice, if he is not, I will pick the charity.

[peacock2121]

You gotta love a man who puts his money where his mouth is.

[Beebs52]

bbk said:

It's interesting that you and, of course, many Democrats and Republicans, operate on the same basis, pragmatically, on who has the best chance to win. It encourages me that you are no different than most of the rest of us. I used to think you weren't, politically. I know better now. I'm sorry you're disenchanted with Hillary finally, as I've been since the 90's for many reasons. But, our early loves sometimes trip us up.

I don't know what I said to give you the impression that you say that you had of me.

I didn't mean to suggest that I've loved Hillary. I've been an Obama supporter. I've always viewed her as a mixed bag. Still do. I've never understood the take on her that so many share -- the she's the devil incarnate or "nasty" (or whatever) with no redeeming qualities. That's always seemed really weird to me, and it still does.

Just because I say now that I don't want her to be President, and that I wouldn't do her now becasuse I wouldn't want to give her the satisfaction, doesn't mean that I'm joining the nut-case Hillary haters.

Oh, I didn't mean anything confusing or mean or whatever by my comments. Weirdly enough my used-to-be visceral almost hatred for Hillary Clinton has abated to just a massive disdain and disgust. I also think she'd be less likely to sell us down the river as completely as Obama would.
Shall be an interesting year.

[wbtravis007]

kusch said:

Put me down for $25. If he is, I will make a $25 donation to a charity of your choice, if he is not, I will pick the charity.

You got it. I'll let you contribute it to his re-election fund.

[peacock2121]

kusch said:

Put me down for $25. If he is, I will make a $25 donation to a charity of your choice, if he is not, I will pick the charity.

You got it. I'll let you contribute it to his re-election fund.

good one!

I will watch with great interest to see how this turns out - between the two of you, I mean.

[kusch]

kusch said:

Put me down for $25. If he is, I will make a $25 donation to a charity of your choice, if he is not, I will pick the charity.

You got it. I'll let you contribute it to his re-election fund.

Believe me, I am not trying to get out of the bet, but I did say charity, not some pipe dream entity. Really, I prefer charity, but if you win and so choose, I will comply with your wishes.

[tlynn78]

Kusch has class.

t.

[peacock2121]

Kusch has class.

t.

He does.

Even as Jack, he has class.

[tlynn78]

Even as Jack, he has class.

indeed.


t.

[kusch]

Even as Jack, he has class.

indeed.


t.

Thank you Pea and Tlynn, I am flattered by the class comment. However, I am somewhat curious about the comment especially coming from two young ladies that nearly or maybe did "pee their pants" laughing at me----------------------------------------------------or was it with me? .


If I should happen to lose (and wb does want the Obama thing) it would not be the first $$$ heading Obama's way from my household. I think Margaret is up to her 4th or 5th contribution to the current campaign. They call, she gives.