South Carolina Dem Primary Results Thread

[William Haskins]

polls will close at 7 eastern.

if the polls are even close to correct, it should be obama with a double-digit win over clinton and edwards mired in the teens.

we shall see.

[billythrilly7th]

polls will close at 7 eastern.

if the polls are even close to correct, it should be obama with a double-digit win over clinton and edwards mired in the teens.

we shall see.

Didn't those same polls say Obama was gonna win by double digits in friggin New Hampshire?

"I'm done with polls. I rely on the Haskins Return Service when I want to know how an election went."
William Thrilly
NYC

Thank you.

[William Haskins]

the real story today may be whether edwards can pull off a surprise second-place finish...

[eldragon]

http://news.yahoo.com/election/2008/dashboard/?d=SC


I enjoy watching these on Yahoo's political dashboard.

It's cool.

[William Haskins]

the pic of romney makes it...

[William Haskins]

0% Reporting

Obama......0%
Clinton......0%
Edwards....0%
Kucinich....0%

NBC is projecting obama as the winner, before the first vote is counted.

[Takvah]

0% Reporting

Obama......0%
Clinton......0%
Edwards....0%
Kucinich....0%

NBC is projecting obama as the winner, before the first vote is counted.

I would like to use the Earth's gravitas to drop a dry erase board on Tim Russert's head!

[William Haskins]

since SC was the only primary that edwards won in 2004, it would seem to me that any breath of life for him moving into super tuesday relies on a second place finish.

[William Haskins]

0% Reporting

Obama......70%
Clinton......18%
Edwards....12%
Kucinich....0%

[William Haskins]

0% Reporting

Obama......71%
Clinton......21%
Edwards....8%
Kucinich....0%

[blacbird]

Kucinich still has a shot.

caw

[InfinityGoddess]

70%...wow. That's what I call a trouncing. o.O

[William Haskins]

Kucinich still has a shot.

caw

he's got 4 votes so far.

[William Haskins]

0% Reporting

Obama......59%
Clinton......27%
Edwards....14%
Kucinich....0%

[Appalachian Writer]

I hear Hillary Clinton has left the state. Obama seems to have soundly trounced her, and poor John Edwards, that lonely South Carolina native; do you think he's considering moving to the Hamptons?

[InfinityGoddess]

MSNBC reports that Clinton is the second place holder.

[William Haskins]

15% Reporting

Obama......53%
Clinton......28%
Edwards....19%
Kucinich....0%

[mscelina]

Looks like Obama is kicking everyone else's ass. The only thing I'm watching now is the race for second--just to see if Edwards can pull a third in his own state. I have a feeling (just a teensy one) that if he finishes third, he might throw his support behind Hillary and drop out of therace--but we shall see.

[Bird of Prey]

Obama will take South Carolina; the rest doesn't matter. Edwards will never make it to the nomination. There's something about him that just appears way too insincere.

The nice thing about Hillary Clinton is that all the dirty laundry is out there and has been for years. Nobody has to second guess her. That's what makes the Clintons trustworthy. Their sins are well recognized and as such - with their devils their angels - their sins are accepted. No surprises.

[William Haskins]

unless obama can translate this victory into momentum in florida, she'll win tuesday -- and then super tuesday is going to be a fucking blast.

[InfinityGoddess]

unless obama can translate this victory into momentum in florida, she'll win tuesday -- and then super tuesday is going to be a fucking blast.

Florida has been stripped of its delegates. The focus is on Super Tuesday.

[Bird of Prey]

unless obama can translate this victory into momentum in florida, she'll win tuesday -- and then super tuesday is going to be a fucking blast.


I can't see him winning Florida. I was just out tonight. People have got this sense of him, that he'll be so overcome by dirty tactics that he'll be ineffectual as a president. Hillary is like Elizabeth I. It's not that she's a saint, not by any means, but the trust in her is that she'll know how to maximize the presidency to put America back in the hands of Americans again. And she's wise enough to know that by doing so, she'll be revered and practically omnipotent in international and national arenas. Hillary Clinton will make history in a way that no president has before her. She will have carte blanche.

[William Haskins]

Florida has been stripped of its delegates. The focus is on Super Tuesday.

a win in florida is still symbolically significant and will balance, in the general public's eyes, the events of the week.

[Joe270]

Hillary Clinton will make history in a way that no president has before her.

Yes. If she wins, I predict she'll be the first president ever imprisoned.

She will have carte blanche.

No, she won't have a clear mandate and she'll have at least half the country who hates her guts giving her the same crap that Bush is getting now.

Another completely ineffective presidency. You're voting for that?

[InfinityGoddess]

a win in florida is still symbolically significant and will balance, in the general public's eyes, the events of the week.

The Florida primary is essentially out of business. It's not the votes that wins the candidate in these things; it's the delegates. So therefore, it's useless, unless the DNC magically reverses their decision in stripping Florida. The media will barely cover it, if that.

[InfinityGoddess]

Yes. If she wins, I predict she'll be the first president ever imprisoned.

Only if there's proof of criminality. They didn't get any on Bill enough to be successfully convicted in the Senate, after all, and that was all over lying about sex.

[Bird of Prey]

Yes. If she wins, I predict she'll be the first president ever imprisoned.



No, she won't have a clear mandate and she'll have at least half the country who hates her guts giving her the same crap that Bush is getting now.

Another completely ineffective presidency. You're voting for that?

Joe, your bias is beneath you.

Damn straight I'm voting for that.


What would you have? Let me guess. Groveling for the crumbs that the mega-rich throw you while you send the youth of American to fight their wars while they don't give a crap how you or young Americans live, what you earn, how you suffer or what you're life is about other than what you have - if anything - to offer them?

This country has been hijacked and I want it back. She can do it. With our support, she can get it back.

[Joe270]

Only if there's proof of criminality. They didn't get any on Bill enough to be successfully convicted in the Senate

She's been involved in so many scandals already that I just figure the odds will catch up with the Clintons.

Plus, folks who get away with crime tend to become emboldened. I figure they'll take an oversized piece of the cake if they get back into power.

I could be wrong, it's just a prediction. But where there's smoke. . . and all those scandals sure put out a load of stinking smoke.

[Takvah]

Plus, folks who get away with crime tend to become imboldened. I figure they'll take an oversized piece of the cake if they get back into power.


Sounds like Bush/Cheney 2000/2004 :D

[William Haskins]

The Florida primary is essentially out of business. It's not the votes that wins the candidate in these things; it's the delegates. So therefore, it's useless, unless the DNC magically reverses their decision in stripping Florida. The media will barely cover it, if that.

see if you can follow me for a minute, IG. i know all about the states that have been stripped of their delegates. if it was devoid of any meaning, they would just close the polls and stay home.

the winner of florida will have the front page of every paper in the country next wednesday morning, and a mere fraction of those readers will process anything about the delegate implications.

what they will know is that one of the largest states was won by one candidate or another, and that will have a ripple effect on the dynamics of the race.

[billythrilly7th]

but the trust in her is that she'll know how to maximize the presidency to put America back in the hands of Americans again.

You just like making stuff up.

Hyperbolic ridiculousness of the highest order.

Half the country loathes her.

You just like making stuff up.

Is that really what the buzz is across the highways and byways of this country.

From the coffee shop to the barber shop to the restaurant to the car wash...

"We Trust Hillary!! She'll Put America Back in The Hands of Americans!"

That doesn't mean anything anyway.

It's a politcal slogan you feed to the moronic masses.

"What are you gonna do for me, Hillary?"

"Put America back in the hands of Americans!"

" :Shrug: "

"What about me?"

"I'm gonna make America live up to the dream of it's forefathers!"

" :Shrug: "

[billythrilly7th]

Joe, your bias is beneath you.

What about your bias?

Gimme a break.

[billythrilly7th]

This country has been hijacked and I want it back. She can do it. With our support, she can get it back.

Another gem of complete and utter pointlessness.

The country isn't hijacked.

She can't get something back that hasn't been taken.

She doesn't give a rats ass about getting it back even if it was.

Which it isn't because it's a stupid meaningless political blurb.

Yeah, Hillary is gonna get something that hasn't been taken back.

Groveling for the crumbs that the mega-rich throw you while you send the youth of American to fight their wars while they don't give a crap how you or young Americans live, what you earn, how you suffer or what you're life is about other than what you have - if anything - to offer them?

Yeah, we're all just groveling at the tables of the mega rich waiting for crumbs.

And when Hillary gets in all of a sudden the keys to the castles owned by the mega rich will open and every taxi driver, teacher, mill worker, Mcdonalds employee will soon be bathing in the country and wealth that Hillary gave back to them.

She will by executive order take property of the wealthy land owners and order the armies to raid their vaults.

She will distribute the riches across the great land and give the downtrodden American who toils for pennies back their great country!!

http://www.monkeytypesthebible.com/uploaded_images/hillary_clinton_video-728229.jpg

"Help is on the way."

:eyeroll:


I think you live in the wrong country, BoP.

I can't believe you've endured this long and survived off those crumbs.

But I guess it's a cycle. So you endure off the crumbs for a few years and then when a Democrat gets in it's parties, limos, caviar. And then the hard times come around again. The bread lines, the hoping Daddy Warbucks tosses a dime into your bucket, the Bushvilles. And then you're back to being a six figure employee again and private jets and then back again to the homeless shelter.

Okay, I understand. You're tired of the communal bathroom at the shelter and really can't wait back to living the high life that Hillary will bestow upon you.

My mistake.

[billythrilly7th]

She's been involved in so many scandals already that I just figure the odds will catch up with the Clintons.

Plus, folks who get away with crime tend to become imboldened. I figure they'll take an oversized piece of the cake if they get back into power.

I could be wrong, it's just a prediction. But where there's smoke. . . and all those scandals sure put out a load of stinking smoke.

I really pray they did a "whew" about having their friends go to jail for them and avoiding it themselves and will be on their best behavior.

But as Dr. Phil says "The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior" so I don't have much hope.

The best case scenario is we spend four-eight more years as a completely divided country, red vs blue and the Clinton's governing by polls in an attempt to stay in office for another term.

I don't want to think about them getting involved in more scandals the likes of which we saw the first time.

Please, on the first day at the White House...

"If ANY OF YOU DO ANYTHING ILLEGAL I WILL FUCKING HAVE THE C.I.A COME TO YOUR FUCKING HOME AND FUCKING MURDER YOU. INCLUDING YOU BILL!! YOU GLANCE AT AN INTERN YOU'RE DEAD. YOU TOO CARVILLE, DEAD. BEGALA, DEAD! NEIDERMEYER, DEAD!"
Hillary Clinton
1/25/09
First address to her staff

[blacbird]

A week ago as I recall, after the Nevada caucuses, my friend Haskins characterized the result (a four- or five-point win for Clinton) as a "thumpin'".

This South Carolina result is a thumpin'. The polls were wrong again, but this time in the other direction. An eight- to ten-point Obama win turned into a 28-point win. Entirely at the expense of Hillary Clinton; Edwards' numbers finished right where the polls said they would.

It says a couple of things. First, the slithery dagger-job performed by Bill was not well-received. It was also pretty much unnecessary, and it's kind of head-scratchy why the Clintons (note how we're now talking about "the Clintons" and not about "Senator Clinton") felt they needed to go there. She's leading in the polls in most SuperTuesday states, and could afford to finish second in SC by a relatively narrow margin, and not damage standing in those other states. But "the Clintons" chose not to travel down that road, but to go for the groin.

Which, to me, shows an element of panic. I don't think they were prepared to be challenged so strongly at this point; a few months ago, it looked like a cakewalk. They've overreacted. It remains to be seen what strategy they follow over the next week, but they are clearly rattled.

For his part, Obama now needs to pull off a couple of upsets, winning some states where he doesn't now lead in the polls. But today certainly didn't hurt him any. A lot of Democratic voters so far leaning toward supporting Clinton are not heavily sold on that choice. There's a lot of volatility, and we're going to see some phenomenal campaigning in the next week. And it doesn't look like Bill is going to be as big an asset as he (and she) would like him to be.

caw

[billythrilly7th]

And it doesn't look like Bill is going to be as big an asset as he (and she) would like him to be.

caw

Bill looks pale, gaunt and tired.

I worry about the man making it through this campaign.

He needs to relax. Stump for Hill, but stop getting so worked up.

I do give him credit, because I really believe that deep down he's such a naricsistic ego maniac that the last thing he wants is for Hillary to say "I got to be President too! Haha!!"

I know human nature. I know Bill Clinton.

But maybe I got it wrong in this one.

Not so sure though.

:Thrillywink:

[mscelina]

What would you have? Let me guess. Groveling for the crumbs that the mega-rich throw you while you send the youth of American to fight their wars while they don't give a crap how you or young Americans live, what you earn, how you suffer or what you're life is about other than what you have - if anything - to offer them?

This country has been hijacked and I want it back. She can do it. With our support, she can get it back.


Just out of curiosity, how precisely do you think that Hillary will 'get the country back?' back from whom? how will she do it? more specifically, how will she do it with a divided Congess and public opinion split down the middle? I'm not inclined to trust hyperbolic political rhetoric; I want something to back it up. So please, share with us how the all-mighty Hillary will accomplish said things?

and kindly remember that our army (as well as the other corps) is comprised of volunteers--men and women who, for the love of their country, have volunteered willingly to go into danger and possible death. No one is forced to go into the army--the soldiers are aware of the possibilities before they enlist/re-enlist. To say that the mega-rich are sending these poor, ignorant unwilling kids off to die is a ridiculous statement from the start and patently untrue.

[InfinityGoddess]

She's been involved in so many scandals already that I just figure the odds will catch up with the Clintons.

Plus, folks who get away with crime tend to become imboldened. I figure they'll take an oversized piece of the cake if they get back into power.

I could be wrong, it's just a prediction. But where there's smoke. . . and all those scandals sure put out a load of stinking smoke.

I'd like to know what scandals, if any she's been criminally involved in. You haven't named one link to anything.

My personal main concern is her voting record and ties to corporate lobbyists and the DLC. She doesn't have a criminal record to speak of, unlike a certain someone known as Bush.

[InfinityGoddess]

see if you can follow me for a minute, IG. i know all about the states that have been stripped of their delegates. if it was devoid of any meaning, they would just close the polls and stay home.

the winner of florida will have the front page of every paper in the country next wednesday morning, and a mere fraction of those readers will process anything about the delegate implications.

what they will know is that one of the largest states was won by one candidate or another, and that will have a ripple effect on the dynamics of the race.

Except that the candidates promised to go by the DNC decision and not campaign or be on the ticket in Michigan and Florida. Edwards and Obama were both off the ticket in Michigan. What's to say the same isn't true with Florida if these guys stuck to their word? If such is the case, then yes, that primary is meaningless and Super Tuesday is where it counts.

[rugcat]

Some things to ponder about South Carolina.

In the 2004 Democratic primary 290,00 people voted. 2008 --530,000.

Young people 18-34 (you know, the ones who don't vote?) -- 3 times as many voted this time around.

49% of the white voters in this age group voted for Obama.

Hilary does not do well with white males. (Duh.)

In states with large Hispanic populations, such as California, democratic Hispanic voters go for Hilary approximately 4 to 1. Hispanics are the largest minority demographic in the country.

There has been some speculation whether whites will vote for a black man when push comes to shove, as in a general election against, say McCain. The real question is, will Hispanics?

Bill Clinton, when asked (semi-jokingly) if he thought it fair that he and Hilary made it two against one in campaigning, replied with the non sequiter, "Jessie Jackson won South Carolina in 1984 and 88."

This clear attempt to marginalize Obama's victory as an unimportant win by a black candidate who will ultimately lose the big primaries was unseemly, to say the least. But whatever else you think of him, he's politically astute. Will this "reminder" backfire, as it seems to have in South Carolina, or is he absolutely correct?

In the spirit of full disclosure, much of this comes from the MSNBC election coverage.

[InfinityGoddess]

This country has been hijacked and I want it back. She can do it. With our support, she can get it back.

While I have no doubt that Hillary will likely reverse some of the damage done by the Bush/Cheney White House, she won't reverse all of it, especially on the economic front. She supports NAFTA, CAFTA, GAFF, and the WTO like her husband. She's also for media consolidation and says corporate lobbyists serve an important purpose (to corporations, perhaps, but not We the People). She's a corporate DLC hack, through and through and voted for the disastrous Bankruptcy Bill that makes it harder for people to file bankruptcy.

There is also some major Hillary hate that exists. It will likely hurt the Democratic chances in the general (doesn't mean they'll lose, necessarily) if she is the nominee.

At least Obama shows a very wide appeal to not only black people, but young white people, white men of all ages, people of other minority groups, independents, and disgruntled Republicans. He's also kept away from making personal attacks when it came to Hillary's gender and stuck to what he stands for and what she stands for, while Bill sorta steered into borderline racist remarks.

[mscelina]

I'd like to know what scandals, if any she's been criminally involved in. You haven't named one link to anything.

My personal main concern is her voting record and ties to corporate lobbyists and the DLC. She doesn't have a criminal record to speak of, unlike a certain someone known as Bush.

Whitewater.

[InfinityGoddess]

Whitewater.

She was not personally involved in that one; just some friends of hers.

[Joe270]

and it's kind of head-scratchy why the Clintons (note how we're now talking about "the Clintons" and not about "Senator Clinton")

Even the Cinton campaign talks about getting 'two for one'. Frankly, I'm still ticked about Hillary's spearheading the health care debacle.

We didn't vote for her, she wasn't elected, it's none of her business. But you can bet your bottom dollar Bill will be involved up to his hairline. But he won't be voted in, either. No Kings and Queens or Queens and Kings in the US, please.

Obviously, the Clintons didn't get it the first time.

[billythrilly7th]

I'd like to know what scandals, if any she's been criminally involved in. You haven't named one link to anything.

I think it was Bob Dylan who once said..

"How many times must I post a link to Hillary scandals before someone knows she's corrupt? And how many times must it it take before you know that she's gotten away with murderrrr? And how many votes can you steal with a pardon before you goooo to jail? The answer my friend is in advanced search. The answer is in advanced search."

[Joe270]

She was not personally involved in that one; just some friends of hers.


Sure, you just keep on believing that.

[mscelina]

She was not personally involved in that one; just some friends of hers.

Uh huh. Hillary Clinton was, at the very least, guilty of obstruction of justice. After all, the erstwhile First Lady managed to 'accidentally' lose subpoenaed documents for two years in the Clintons' family quarters. And she was involved in Whitewater development--she was a 1/4 partner in it along with Bill and James and Susan McDougal. PLUS she was the personal lawyer of the McDougals and the corporate lawyer for McDougal's Savings and Loan (which went under due to massive fradulent loans.

So it's really hard to say that Hillary was not involved. It's easy to say that, regardless of the Clintons' involvement and obstruction of justice, they were never charged by the government whereas 14 other people were.

[Joe270]

"How many times must I post a link to Hillary scandals before someone knows she's corrupt? And how many times must it it take before you know that she's gotten away with murderrrr? And how many votes can you steal with a pardon before you goooo to jail? The answer my friend is in advanced search. The answer is in advanced search."

I'm with you on this one, Billy. Time for IG to do some research on her own.

This should be a really easy assignment. There is a quick-reference 'A-Z of Hillary Scandals' which could give her a nice start.

Hint, hint.

[mscelina]

I think it was Bob Dylan who once said..

"How many times must I post a link to Hillary scandals before someone knows she's corrupt? And how many times must it it take before you know that she's gotten away with murderrrr? And how many votes can you steal with a pardon before you goooo to jail? The answer my friend is in advanced search. The answer is in advanced search."

amen, pal. Google is your FRIEND.

[clintl]

the winner of florida will have the front page of every paper in the country next wednesday morning, and a mere fraction of those readers will process anything about the delegate implications.



The media will ignore Clinton's win in Florida (assuming she wins) just like they did in Michigan. All of the attention is going to be on the Republicans.

[billythrilly7th]

Sure, you just keep on believing that.

:ROFL:

My favorite is Hillary's Brady Bunch moment after her billing records that were being asked for by prosecuters for TWO YEARS were found on the Lincoln bedroom coffee table.

"Hillary, we've been asking for your billing records for two years."

"They just suddenly showed up!"

THIS ONE THING. Just this. And she should be in jail.

All clear thinking people have to come to that conclusion.

That one thing is enough to disqualify her from being President.

B is for Billing-gate, Hillary Clinton's missing law-billing records. Those records -- which raise questions about Mrs. Clinton's role in the Castle Grande deal -- were subpoenaed in 1994. They were missing until early 1996, when they turned up in a White House room next to her office. She says she doesn't know how they got there.


" :Shrug: "
Hillary Clinton

C is for Cattlegate, Hillary Clinton's mysterious ability to turn a $1,000 investment into a $100,000 profit on cattle futures, a feat experts say was virtually impossible in normal trading.

" :Shrug: Just lucky I guess. "
Hillary Clinton


The list goes on and on.

But hey.... I know that those democrats who hate George Bush for all the scandals and corruption are gonna be able to overlook these minor daliances.

God bless ya.

[rugcat]

:ROFL:But hey.... I know that those democrats who hate George Bush for all the scandals and corruption are gonna be able to overlook these minor daliances.The big difference is that George Bush's actions have resulted in serious harm to many thousands of people, not to mention our entire notion of democracy.

[mscelina]

*sigh* this is, of course, a useless argument. I find that most politicians suffer from severe short term memory loss.

[mscelina]

The big difference is that George Bush's actions have resulted in serious harm to many thousands of people, not to mention our entire notion of democracy.

And which actions would those be? I don't recollect Bush handcuffing young men and women and marching them onto the planes to deploy overseas. The last time I checked, the decision to go to war was made jointly between the President and the Congress--including the oh-so-saintly Hillary Clinton. Once again, this type of comment is hyperbolic and inaccurate.

[billythrilly7th]

The big difference is that George Bush's actions have resulted in serious harm to many thousands of people, not to mention our entire notion of democracy.

No they haven't. Ridiculous.

And policy decisions are a far cry from personal corruption.

[billythrilly7th]

And which actions would those be? I don't recollect Bush handcuffing young men and women and marching them onto the planes to deploy overseas. The last time I checked, the decision to go to war was made jointly between the President and the Congress--including the oh-so-saintly Hillary Clinton. Once again, this type of comment is hyperbolic and inaccurate.

Of course.

All clear minded people understand that.

[Joe270]

Her campaign adds piss me off. She's always spewing 'My thirty-five years of experience'.

What thirty-five years of experience? Her marriage to Clinton is experience?

Anyone else claiming such experience on a resume would be laughed out of the job interview. If they did get hired and this 'experience' came to light, they would be fired for padding their resume.

What stuns me is so many Americans are buying this drivel.

[rugcat]

Once again, this type of comment is hyperbolic and inaccurate.Interesting comment, considering the signature under your avatar.

This is a pointless argument, because, for example, I believe Bush deliberately distorted information in order to achieve his goal of invading Iraq, where clearly you do not.

There are countless things he has done, in my opinion, that have caused almost irreparable harm to this country. Are they criminal? Well, they're right on the fuzzy border, though I doubt he could ever be convicted of anything. When he's out of office and can no longer refuse to accept subpoenas or refuse to let his subordinates testify, however, it will be interesting.

We could argue all night and I'd never convince you of this, nor could you convince me of the opposite, so we may as well put it to bed.

[rugcat]

What stuns me is so many Americans are buying this drivel.Funny, I've been saying the exact same thing for the last seven years.

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r33/rugcat/images-1.jpg

[blacbird]

Funny, I've been saying the exact same thing for the last seven years.

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r33/rugcat/images-1.jpg

Some still are.

caw

[Bird of Prey]

There are countless things he has done, in my opinion, that have caused almost irreparable harm to this country. Are they criminal? Well, they're right on the fuzzy border, though I doubt he could ever be convicted of anything.


I wouldn't take that option off the table just yet. If the country continues a steep descent economically, heads will roll.

[Bird of Prey]

Even the Cinton campaign talks about getting 'two for one'. Frankly, I'm still ticked about Hillary's spearheading the health care debacle.

We didn't vote for her, she wasn't elected, it's none of her business. But you can bet your bottom dollar Bill will be involved up to his hairline. But he won't be voted in, either. No Kings and Queens or Queens and Kings in the US, please.

Obviously, the Clintons didn't get it the first time.

Lol!! Like the country's going vote for a Republican. Another crooked ass Republican candidate that promotes lining the pockets of the rich while the country goes into debt and owes its economic life to China. A Republican that can't wait to kill more people in the pursuit of CEO greed aka oil. A Republican that alienates the international community, spies on Americans, lies to Americans - 925 statements in his first years according to PBS - and would leave Americans without health care and jobs if he could. A Republican that couldn't give a crap less about Global Warming and its impact on people who can't afford luxuries like air conditioning and imported food. His solution to everything is buy more Chinese trinkets. Buy more shit, America. Here: we'll give you credit.

Right, Joe. A Republican again?? Nah. Ain't gonna happen. I don't care how much you hate Hillary Clinton. She'll make it. And it behoove you to understand that the Republican party is not the party is was. It's now a big government, pro-war adversary of the average American.

[Takvah]

Right, Joe. A Republican again?? Nah. Ain't gonna happen. I don't care how much you hate Hillary Clinton. She'll make it.

I'm not so sure she can beat McCain. Why? I think he has such a stranglehold on independents. He also looks like a genius now because he backed the surge and "reports" (who knows what reality is) have indicated that it's been successful. Look, the Dems are off that message. Now they're on the economy... and to listen to Hillary on the economy it sounds like so much daydreaming and very little substance. I watched her on C-Span last night. NOT ONE SOLID IDEA... lots of GREAT SOUNDING buzzwords like jobs, but nothing REAL.

[Christine N.]

Those armed forces people may have signed up, but I doubt the Iraqi nationals who have died during the last six years did.

I agree, he manipulated the American public, then disregarded their feelings about war and did what he wanted anyway. Easy to do when Congress majority is on your side.

I don't like any single one of the candidates, and don't hold a prayer they can fix this mess. We're going to have to do it on our own.

[InfinityGoddess]

And which actions would those be? I don't recollect Bush handcuffing young men and women and marching them onto the planes to deploy overseas. The last time I checked, the decision to go to war was made jointly between the President and the Congress--including the oh-so-saintly Hillary Clinton. Once again, this type of comment is hyperbolic and inaccurate.

Let's see, now, what has Bush done?:

He has alienated our allies overseas.

He has condoned the use of torture, which is a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions.

He has invaded a country that was no threat to us based on lies and is attempting to saber-rattle us into another.

He is wiretapping the American people without warrants, and openly admitted to it, which was a clear violation of FISA and the Fourth Amendment. He is now asking for telecom immunity (of which they aided and abetted him until the government stopped paying their phone bills on time).

He goes around the Senate to pick truly atrocious industry-friendly cronies to be in charge of various federal agencies.

The only lesson his VP has learned since the Watergate Era is how not to get caught law-breaking.

He left the people in the Gulf Coast to rot for five days after Katrina before sending in anyone to help, and even then the trailers that the Katrina victims were provided with were contaminated.

He pisses away our future with his little war games and leaves our infrastructure to crumble.

He perpetuates the "free trade" agreements started by Bill Clinton and more people have lost their jobs to cheaper labor overseas.

He is attempting to corporatize all of our public institutions by giving it to the private sector to deal with, with no accountability to be had.

Need I go on?

I think it was Bob Dylan who once said..

"How many times must I post a link to Hillary scandals before someone knows she's corrupt? And how many times must it it take before you know that she's gotten away with murderrrr? And how many votes can you steal with a pardon before you goooo to jail? The answer my friend is in advanced search. The answer is in advanced search."

Sounds to me like people really need to take their own advice. What happened to Vince Foster was suicide and Bill Clinton won his presidency fair and square.

And most of the "scandals" you cited are that of her husband's. I'm talking about her, personally, not her husband. If she's corrupt, it's mostly because she's a DLC Democrat who lavishes in corporate lobbyists.

[clintl]

Those Republicans who are still questioning Vince Foster's suicide need to move on. Even Kenneth Starr concluded it was a suicide when he investigated. What more do you need?

[Takvah]

Those Republicans who are still questioning Vince Foster's suicide need to move on. Even Kenneth Starr concluded it was a suicide when he investigated. What more do you need?

Yeah! Ron Brown was the one that the Clintons had hit! Not Vince Foster! Get with the program people.

[Cranky]

You know, this thread illustrates rather nicely why I hope like hell Hillary doesn't get the nomination...I don't want to listen to four (or even eight!) years of this crap. I've been hearing this b.s. all my adult life from politicians and I'm dead sick of it.

It's been Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush since I was able to vote. Please....let there be some new blood fer crying out loud!

Then we can gossip about some new scandals, at the very least.

[Takvah]

It's been Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush since I was able to vote. Please....let there be some new blood fer crying out loud!



Well said, this power swapping nonsense is WRONG for America. I really wish John Edwards had a shot at the nomination. I would vote for the guy.

[Christine N.]

Takvah, me too. Shame. And he's said publicly that he won't settle for VP. So once he's out, he's out. I can hope he'd change his mind...he'd be a good rational influence over Obama's pie-in-the-sky politics.

Like I said, I don't like any of 'em, except Edwards, and he's pretty much done.

[InfinityGoddess]

Takvah, me too. Shame. And he's said publicly that he won't settle for VP. So once he's out, he's out. I can hope he'd change his mind...he'd be a good rational influence over Obama's pie-in-the-sky politics.

Like I said, I don't like any of 'em, except Edwards, and he's pretty much done.

Obama's actually not that bad. He had a very progressive stance while he was in the Illinois legislature. He's made his mistakes, but who doesn't? It'd actually be exciting to have him as President...he just got an endorsement from Caroline Kennedy today. His brand of politics is no different than JFK's in that regard, and not just because Jack's daughter said so.

[mscelina]

Those armed forces people may have signed up, but I doubt the Iraqi nationals who have died during the last six years did.

I agree, he manipulated the American public, then disregarded their feelings about war and did what he wanted anyway. Easy to do when Congress majority is on your side.

I don't like any single one of the candidates, and don't hold a prayer they can fix this mess. We're going to have to do it on our own.

Personally, I don't give a rat's patootey about Iraqi nationals who died in the last six years unless you can provide some statistics as to how many are the enemy and how many were 'innocent' bystanders. As for manipulating the American public, you should probably take a closer look at Colin Powell before you say that. If you guys don't think that first Colin Powell and then Condoleeza Rice are the ultimate authority when it comes to the war, you need to do some more research. Understand me when I say that I am not particularly fond of the Bush presidency, but I cannot allow hyperbole and partisan fanaticism to slip by unchallenged. Provide me some factual information and you may get a 'mea culpa'--but considering the types of things that are being said here, I doubt it.

But I agree about the candidates. I don't care for any of them as a rule.

[mscelina]

Let's see, now, what has Bush done?:

He has alienated our allies overseas. All of them? Like whom?

He has condoned the use of torture, which is a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions. I don't recollect even reading that Bush had condoned the use of torture. I do recollect that the Veit Cong approved it and that the former Iraqi government practiced it. So which is worse? People who didn't support Hussein being tortured or a President who is unaware of it?

He has invaded a country that was no threat to us based on lies and is attempting to saber-rattle us into another. And your point? Bush is the commander-in-chief. If you don't realize that Iraq was a threat or that Iran is one now, then you need to watch the news more. Don't be picky---cruise around them all. If you get all your information from a biased media source, then you'll continue to spew forth these unrealistic opinions.

He is wiretapping the American people without warrants, and openly admitted to it, which was a clear violation of FISA and the Fourth Amendment. He is now asking for telecom immunity (of which they aided and abetted him until the government stopped paying their phone bills on time). And was approved by the Congress through the passage of the Patriot Act. Blame them. It's not like YOUR phone is being tapped for Christ's sake.

He goes around the Senate to pick truly atrocious industry-friendly cronies to be in charge of various federal agencies. Just like every President does. Again, reading is your friend.

The only lesson his VP has learned since the Watergate Era is how not to get caught law-breaking. And how is this Bush's fault? Put the blame where it belongs. This is the same kind of crap people were spewing to protect President Idiot Clinton from the stupid things he did. If you're responsible for your own actions, then Cheney is too.

He left the people in the Gulf Coast to rot for five days after Katrina before sending in anyone to help, and even then the trailers that the Katrina victims were provided with were contaminated. Again, that was the fault of the state and local government, who have to ask for Federal aid.

He pisses away our future with his little war games and leaves our infrastructure to crumble. That's an awful big accusation for a young 'un to make. Back it up. Cite sources, Give me facts.

He perpetuates the "free trade" agreements started by Bill Clinton and more people have lost their jobs to cheaper labor overseas. Don't you think this one should hang around Clinton's neck? Hmmmm? I think so. That and the Democratic control of the Congress should be equally to blame.

He is attempting to corporatize all of our public institutions by giving it to the private sector to deal with, with no accountability to be had. Too much CNN will rot your brain.

Need I go on? Only if you have citations. Otherwise, I'll pass.


Sounds to me like people really need to take their own advice. What happened to Vince Foster was suicide and Bill Clinton won his presidency fair and square. I agree; never brought that up actually. I voted for the stupid son of a ....dog.

And most of the "scandals" you cited are that of her husband's. I'm talking about her, personally, not her husband. If she's corrupt, it's mostly because she's a DLC Democrat who lavishes in corporate lobbyists. You can't separate Hillary Rodham Clinton from the Bill Clinton presidency, just like you won't be able to separate Bill from her presidency if she wins. That's just not possible, especially since she claims those eight years as her 'experience'. Gimme a break already.


*sigh* I knew there was a reason I should never have even peeked into the Political forum. I turn into an uber-beotch when my degrees kick in. Mea culpa for the snottiness, but not for the opinions.

[rugcat]

Personally, I don't give a rat's patootey about Iraqi nationals who died in the last six years unless you can provide some statistics as to how many are the enemy and how many were 'innocent' bystanders. By enemy, I assume you mean anyone who fought against an army that had invaded their country. Fathers, sons, brothers, loved ones -- all of these people had families who grieve and lives that were shattered.

Some surely were terrorists who deserve little sympathy. Others were ordinary Iraqis who saw themselves as patriots. Others simply chose one side or the other, no better or worse than our "allies" But they all felt fear and pain and the myriad horrors of war.

I'm always amazed at the cavalier dismissal of wasted human life because they are the "enemy," as if they were not human and deserve zero compassion. Don't forget, these are not people who attacked us -- these are people we ourselves attacked, for whatever motives you wish to ascribe. Possibly you might give more of a rat's patootie if a 20 year old "enemy" kid spilled his intestines over you, screaming in pain before he died. Or, perhaps not.

Ever read All Quiet On the Western Front? It's about the enemy, remember.

As to Colin Powell, he was snookered along with the rest of us and he knew it. That's why he resigned, and you haven't heard much from him since, have you?

Condi? The woman is the George Bush version of an intellectual -- that is to say, an idiot. IMO, of course.

[Dawno]

Please remember as you address the facts or assumptions of your fellow AW members here to refrain from making snide or belittling statements about your fellow AW members in your posts.

[mscelina]

Sorry Dawno, and sorry IG. I knew better. You guys need to forgive me--I was a debater in high school and college so I tend to take an aggressive stance when my degrees kick in.

And Rugrat--I firmly believe the statement beneath my avatar. I really do. However, I get easily annoyed by hyperbole when discussing a political stance. I will discount anyone's partisan statement unless it is backed up by cited sources and fact. *shrug* Another aspect of the debater is that they can take any point of view on an issue and defend it. However, IMHO, anyone who discusses such things in a partisan, almost fanatical manner in any forum should be able to cite the sources from where their knowledge was taken.

At any rate, carry on. :)

[Bravo]

i don't really know who i'd support right now, but i'm not sure if obama can beat mccain in an election. they both draw from the same independent pool, and i have a feeling that in the end, people will gravitate more towards mccain because of his experience. hillary could probably beat him though. but she's just as neoconservative as him, and i have little love for her universal healthcare plan. so...:Shrug:

i actually would love for huckabee or romney to get more wins, because i know either of the dems would beat those tools.

[William Haskins]

actually, for the first time since serious polling began for 08, we've got one hell of a shooting match going on between either obama or clinton and mccain.

clinton vs. mccain polling averages (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_clinton-224.html)
obama vs. mccain polling averages (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html)

the republicans are the ones that need to now start considering electability issues, as romney (based on current polling) gets trounced by either barak (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-231.html)or hillary (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_clinton-230.html).

[Joe270]

I heard something about a McCain/Lieberman ticket. It was probably speculation, but I didn't catch it all.

That sounds very interesting. McCain is already considered a GOP maverick, and Lieberman is certainly a demo maverick. Both meet pretty nicely in the middle.

Perhaps this ticket could help to heal the huge blue/red divide.

[rugcat]

.However, IMHO, anyone who discusses such things in a partisan, almost fanatical manner in any forum should be able to cite the sources from where their knowledge was taken. Partisan and fanatical are subjective judgments. As far as backing up every point with sources, that's fine for a debate, but a discussion board is not a debate forum. It's an exchange of ideas and opinions, and when someone gets too far out they're generally slammed by numerous posters.

As an example, I stated that Colin Powell resigned because he believed he'd been lied to and taken advantage of. That's clearly an opinion; he has never stated that, and in fact he may have even publicly denied it. I can't back it up, or provide sourcing, nor would I wish to take the time to do so.

My opinion, however, is neither fanatical nor partisan. Nor is my opinion about the folly of the Iraq war, although I understand others may disagree about that subject.

[rugcat]

McCain is already considered a GOP maverick, and Lieberman is certainly a demo maverick. Both meet pretty nicely in the middle.

Perhaps this ticket could help to heal the huge blue/red divide.I doubt that. Lieberman is despised by the left in a way that McCain is not.

[Christine N.]

By enemy, I assume you mean anyone who fought against an army that had invaded their country. Fathers, sons, brothers, loved ones -- all of these people had families who grieve and lives that were shattered.

Some surely were terrorists who deserve little sympathy. Others were ordinary Iraqis who saw themselves as patriots. Others simply chose one side or the other, no better or worse than our "allies" But they all felt fear and pain and the myriad horrors of war.

I'm always amazed at the cavalier dismissal of wasted human life because they are the "enemy," as if they were not human and deserve zero compassion. Don't forget, these are not people who attacked us -- these are people we ourselves attacked, for whatever motives you wish to ascribe. Possibly you might give more of a rat's patootie if a 20 year old "enemy" kid spilled his intestines over you, screaming in pain before he died. Or, perhaps not.

Ever read All Quiet On the Western Front? It's about the enemy, remember.

As to Colin Powell, he was snookered along with the rest of us and he knew it. That's why he resigned, and you haven't heard much from him since, have you?

Condi? The woman is the George Bush version of an intellectual -- that is to say, an idiot. IMO, of course.


What rugrat said. If you sign up to defend your country, that's one thing. If someone invades your country and stuff starts blowing up...that's different. You're going to tell me all those children who died (suicide bombers or not, they were children) weren't worth anything? Nice.

The one and only good thing to come from the war is the removal of Saddam Hussein.

[blacbird]

Some predictions:

Joe Lieberman is not going to be on anybody's ticket as a Vice-Presidential candidate this year.

No one (neither Bloomberg nor Paul) is going to mount a significant independent challenge for the Presidency.

Al Gore is not going to endorse any candidate during the meaningful stretch of the primaries. If the Dems wind up with a "brokered" convention, his name will leap to prominence as a possible nominee.

caw

[rugcat]

No one (neither Bloomberg nor Paul) is going to mount a significant independent challenge for the Presidency.Have you forgotten Ralph Nader so soon? His monumental ego and self righteous personality know no bounds.

I would not be at all surprised to see him back in action, especially If Hillary wins the nomination. He might find it hard to draw support away from Obama, but I wouldn't even put that attempt past him.

[William Haskins]

MONTREAL (Reuters) - Consumer advocate Ralph Nader said on Monday he will decide soon on whether to make a another bid for the White House in 2008, eight years after playing a key role as a third party presidential candidate.
"I'll decide in about a month," he said in an interview broadcast on CBC Radio's Daybreak show in Montreal.

"What I'm deciding on right now is whether we can get enough volunteers, enough financial resources to overcome the huge ballot access obstacles, which you don't experience here in Canada, but which are the worst in the Western world in the United States," said Nader, who will turn 74 on February 27.


http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2141369720080121

re: lieberman. i agree that he will not be tapped for a VP run. mccain's high-profile presence with him recently has far more to do with illustrating his capacity for bi-partisanship in the senate. lieberman is far more useful in that role.

[blacbird]

Have you forgotten Ralph Nader so soon? His monumental ego and self righteous personality know no bounds.

I would not be at all surprised to see him back in action, especially If Hillary wins the nomination. He might find it hard to draw support away from Obama, but I wouldn't even put that attempt past him.

I said "significant" I don't think Nader carries that cachet any longer. I certainly don't give a rat's ass about him.

caw

[robeiae]

actually, for the first time since serious polling began for 08, we've got one hell of a shooting match going on between either obama or clinton and mccain.

clinton vs. mccain polling averages (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_clinton-224.html)
obama vs. mccain polling averages (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html)

the republicans are the ones that need to now start considering electability issues, as romney (based on current polling) gets trounced by either barak (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-231.html)or hillary (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_clinton-230.html).
Yeah, but Romney is largely an unknown to a majority of the nation. I don't want to sound like I'm backing him--'cause I'm not--but given three sitting Senators and a former Governor, there is a pretty clear historical trend with regard to electability. Let's face, none of the three Senators are JFK, nor are any of them Warren G. Harding...

[InfinityGoddess]

All of them? Like whom?

Spain, Italy, Poland, South Korea, Japan, and most recently Australia, to name a few. About our only "staunch ally" now is the British. All the leaders in those other countries who were Bush supporters lost their jobs in some form or another.
I don't recollect even reading that Bush had condoned the use of torture. I do recollect that the Veit Cong approved it and that the former Iraqi government practiced it. So which is worse? People who didn't support Hussein being tortured or a President who is unaware of it?

Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo don't mean anything to you? Only the small fry got punished in Abu Ghraib; no high-up officers. Also, the Washington Post reported on CIA "black site" prisons quite some time ago.
And your point? Bush is the commander-in-chief. If you don't realize that Iraq was a threat or that Iran is one now, then you need to watch the news more. Don't be picky---cruise around them all. If you get all your information from a biased media source, then you'll continue to spew forth these unrealistic opinions.

Iraq was NOT a threat to us. The sanctions on Saddam were working and he hated Osama bin Laden as much as we do. Iran is not a threat; they even stopped a nuclear weapons program a few years ago, and even if they proceed with it now, it would take years before they would have weapons. The latest NIE even said so.

And was approved by the Congress through the passage of the Patriot Act. Blame them. It's not like YOUR phone is being tapped for Christ's sake.

No, it was not. FISA was still in place at the time of the Patriot Act, and any change to make warrantless wiretaps legal is still a violation of the Bill of Rights. It's not so easy to change a Constitution as it is to change a law.

Furthermore, the NSA was casting a very wide net, so they could have tapped anyone's phone. And Bush himself was stupid enough to admit to it on national television, shortly after the NYT came out with the story.

Just like every President does. Again, reading is your friend.

Ah, but not everyone hires an Arabian horse judge (and couldn't have even have done THAT job right) to be in charge of FEMA, now do they?

Most Presidents have at least hired competent people in these jobs.

And how is this Bush's fault? Put the blame where it belongs. This is the same kind of crap people were spewing to protect President Idiot Clinton from the stupid things he did. If you're responsible for your own actions, then Cheney is too.

Bush chose him as VP. Or rather, Cheney chose for Bush to be VP. Either way, he's bad news.

Furthermore, you will never find me defending some of the things Clinton has done. I'm no fan of his or his wife's.

Again, that was the fault of the state and local government, who have to ask for Federal aid.

They did ask for help, but it didn't come.

That's an awful big accusation for a young 'un to make. Back it up. Cite sources, Give me facts.

Katrina was one big example. Why do you think those levees failed to hold back the flooding? Don't you think this one should hang around Clinton's neck? Hmmmm? I think so. That and the Democratic control of the Congress should be equally to blame.

Clinton isn't the President now, number one. And number two, there was a Republican-controlled Congress for much of Bush's time in office. They had a chance to reverse NAFTA and those other agreements, but they didn't. Why? Because they are just as, or even moreso beholden to their corporate buddies as the DLC are.

Too much CNN will rot your brain.

I don't watch CNN. I get much of my information from independent media and Keith Olbermann.
Only if you have citations. Otherwise, I'll pass.

I'll show you mine if you show me yours.

[William Haskins]

The sanctions on Saddam were working

if your criteria for "working" was saddam getting rich and a half million children dying...

maybe you, like ms. albright, feel it was "worth it"?

[mscelina]

Good point, Haskins.

And I'll be happy to provide you with citations, IG, as soon as I drag them out. No matter that I already apologized for tweaking your chain, you seem intent on trying to make me believe your point of view.

It won't happen. *shrug* I couldn't compete with the brilliance and impartialism of Keith Olbermann. I am, however, entitled to my own opinion much as you are to yours. Just a bit of advice--accept the apology for my snooty tone and move on. You don't want to get me involved in a debate that turns nasty. Really you don't.

[rugcat]

You don't want to get me involved in a debate that turns nasty. Really you don't.That I can certainly believe.

[clintl]

Yeah, but Romney is largely an unknown to a majority of the nation. I don't want to sound like I'm backing him--'cause I'm not--but given three sitting Senators and a former Governor, there is a pretty clear historical trend with regard to electability. Let's face, none of the three Senators are JFK, nor are any of them Warren G. Harding...

Being largely unknown (if that's true - I don't think it is) is probably to Romney's benefit right now, since it appears that he's basically nothing more that an imitation Ronald Reagan who just a few years ago was an imitation Nelson Rockefeller. If he gets nominated, he may well be the worst Republican nominee in decades.

[William Haskins]

yeah i don't think it's true either that romney is unknown.

rasmussen has them tied nationally (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll) and their 10+ point lead on huckabee, giuliani and paul indicates that republicans have a good sense of who's running.

and anyone listening to limbaugh, hannity or scarborough hears more than they could ever ask for about romney.

exposure ain't the issue. favorability is, and he doesn't have it.

[rugcat]

if your criteria for "working" was saddam getting rich and a half million children dying...

maybe you, like ms. albright, feel it was "worth it"?Except, it's never been about Saddam's tyranny or children dying. It been about the perception of what best serves US interests. We supported this despicable man for many years and turned a blind eye toward his murderous ways, because we felt it was in our interest to do so. Only when he became more of an obstacle to us than a help did we turn on him. The idea that we were motivated by humanitarian concerns seems naive to me.

That's the world of realpolitik. But the neocons miscalculated both the direct and indirect consequences of invading Iraq. From a humanitarian point of view it was probably a good idea, although it's the Iraqis who must determine that, not us. But from the point of view of what would best serve America's interests, it's been a near total disaster.

[Bird of Prey]

Romney is a billionaire. He got there by being a shithead. People know that, except in Massachusetts, where sometimes I wonder if the citizens there would elect Queen Elizabeth II as their governor and despot.

I would gladly give Massachusetts to Canada or whoever - including Britain - would have her.

[robeiae]

He pisses away our future with his little war games and leaves our infrastructure to crumble.That's an awful big accusation for a young 'un to make. Back it up. Cite sources, Give me facts.

Katrina was one big example. Why do you think those levees failed to hold back the flooding?

Are you still trying to play this song? Sorry, it's outright BS--both your take on the levee system and on infrastructure in general. You don't have any facts to support either position. Give it up. It's getting silly and--as I've noted before--it detracts mightily from any valid point/argument you may make.

[MattW]

I would gladly give Massachusetts to Canada or whoever - including Britain - would have her.I'll make some calls to Ireland.

[robeiae]

yeah i don't think it's true either that romney is unknown.
He's not unknown by name and he's not unknown to those that follow politics closely. Still, I doubt the typical voter really knows who he is, how he presents himself, has a "feel" for him. And more importantly, he can't be held down to specific votes he has made that had a real or imagined effect--negative or positive--on the voters, at large. Unlike sitting Senators. And imo, that's why sitting Senators are usually defeated by Governors in general elections. They (the Senators) are playing from a position of weakness, insofar as they have a legislative record that is a continuum to their campaign.

So again, "electability" is not something that can be determined by polling data, particularly at this stage. By such a standard, I think Clinton may have been equally weak on "electability" at a similar moment in his campaign. Maybe weaker...

[William Haskins]

okay. i get you.

i don't think we're actually disagreeing here, except maybe in nuance.

[Bird of Prey]

I'll make some calls to Ireland.


Ireland definitely won't take him. . .

but make the call anyway. Even a long shot can be lucky.

[mscelina]

Ireland definitely won't take him. . .

but make the call anyway. Even a long shot can be lucky.

*snicker* Ireland may be a little too liberal for Mitt Romney.

[Bird of Prey]

*snicker* Ireland may be a little too liberal for Mitt Romney.


May be?? Hehehe. Methinks Ireland has enough problems with "royalty" to want to perpetuate lineage for the sake of lineage.

[InfinityGoddess]

if your criteria for "working" was saddam getting rich and a half million children dying...

maybe you, like ms. albright, feel it was "worth it"?

No. But it did stop him from making weapons.

[Bird of Prey]

if your criteria for "working" was saddam getting rich and a half million children dying...



Instead of who now?

[InfinityGoddess]

Good point, Haskins.

And I'll be happy to provide you with citations, IG, as soon as I drag them out. No matter that I already apologized for tweaking your chain, you seem intent on trying to make me believe your point of view.

It won't happen. *shrug* I couldn't compete with the brilliance and impartialism of Keith Olbermann. I am, however, entitled to my own opinion much as you are to yours. Just a bit of advice--accept the apology for my snooty tone and move on. You don't want to get me involved in a debate that turns nasty. Really you don't.

My chain is far from being "tweaked", as it were. I try make it a point not to get nasty. I'm just strong-willed, is all.

[brokenfingers]

Romney is a billionaire. He got there by being a shithead. People know that, except in Massachusetts, where sometimes I wonder if the citizens there would elect Queen Elizabeth II as their governor and despot.

I would gladly give Massachusetts to Canada or whoever - including Britain - would have her.Hey BoP, have you been drinking? We have a lot of fine members from Massachusetts here and I don't think they'd appreciate you generalizing them in one lump and calling them all idiots.

Out of curiosity, have you ever even been to Massachusetts?

Do you make jokes or ridicule any other groups of people? Southerners maybe? Blacks? Women? French even?

Also, out of curiosity, what other states do you not like and would like to get rid of? Any hillbilly states? Lousiana and Alabama too redneck for you? How about Western states? Too many cowboys? Florida? too many old people?

How about a list?

[Bird of Prey]

Hey BoP, have you been drinking? We have a lot of fine members from Massachusetts here and I don't think they'd appreciate you generalizing them in one lump and calling them all idiots.

Out of curiosity, have you ever even been to Massachusetts?

Do you make jokes or ridicule any other groups of people? Southerners maybe? Blacks? Women? French even?

Also, out of curiosity, what other states do you not like and would like to get rid of? Any hillbilly states? Lousiana and Alabama too redneck for you? How about Western states? Too many cowboys? Florida? too many old people?

How about a list?

Massachusetts tops my list as a state that continuously supports/elects a man that killed a young woman and partied later. Good enough for me.

You see that big guy on a sailboat? The sailboat's a Hatteras? You think you'd be doing that , Bf, sailing a Hatteras if you were a drunk driver and killed your date by driving off a bridge?

F*** no.

Oh. And shit yes, I've been to Massachusetts.

And apologies - and sympathies - to all those fine Massachusetts citizens that didn't vote for him.

[InfinityGoddess]

Massachusetts tops my list as a state that continuously supports/elects a man that killed a young woman and partied later. Good enough for me.

You see that big guy on a sailboat? The sailboat's a Hatteras? You think you'd be doing that , Bf, sailing a Hatteras if you were a drunk driver and killed your date by driving off a bridge?

F*** no.

Oh. And shit yes, I've been to Massachusetts.

And apologies - and sympathies - to all those fine Massachusetts citizens that didn't vote for him.

Did you even read my link? He plead guilty in the end for leaving the scene.

And Massachusetts votes for him because they like him. Apparently he makes up for his past mistakes by serving his constituents. Something many politicians rarely do.

[blacbird]

Romney is a billionaire. He got there by being a shithead. People know that, except in Massachusetts, where sometimes I wonder if the citizens there would elect Queen Elizabeth II as their governor and despot.

I would gladly give Massachusetts to Canada or whoever - including Britain - would have her.

Let's trade Massachusetts for Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island. Oughta be about equal. And then my son could be going to college in a foreign country. He'd think it was way cool.

caw

[Bird of Prey]

Let's trade Massachusetts for Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island. Oughta be about equal. And then my son could be going to college in a foreign country. He'd think it was way cool.

caw


I'm in.

[Bird of Prey]

Did you even read my link? He plead guilty in the end for leaving the scene.

And Massachusetts votes for him because they like him. Apparently he makes up for his past mistakes by serving his constituents. Something many politicians rarely do.


I'll say he left the scene!! That was unarguable. The rest was pay-offs.

I'm sorry, IG, the Kennedys do not hold a warm place in my heart.

[InfinityGoddess]

I'll say he left the scene!! That was unarguable. The rest was pay-offs.

I'm sorry, IG, the Kennedys do not hold a warm place in my heart.

Unfortunately, they do in mine. They're not a perfect family by any stretch, and sure they have their fair share of baggage, but who doesn't? Ted Kennedy was not malicious in the killing. He was drunk and did something stupid by driving impaired. The girl simply died from his lack of judgment. He would have gotten more serious charges had he not had a plea deal. That's hardly a "pay-off".

And it's also because of that incident he never ran for President, unlike his brothers Jack and Bobby. He had the good sense not to, unlike someone else we know of, who has also driven impaired on alcohol and got hit with a felony drunk driving charge.

Yet, despite this, he's still very influential, because in the years since his drunk driving accident, he still works for economic and social justice. And that is why he keeps getting elected. Because he works for the people who vote for him and is not bought off by the corporations, unlike those Democrats in the DLC and the Blue Dogs. So getting an endorsement from him does hold a lot more weight than you realize.

[Bird of Prey]

Yet, despite this, he's still very influential, because in the years since his drunk driving accident, he still works for economic and social justice. And that is why he keeps getting elected. Because he works for the people who vote for him and is not bought off by the corporations, unlike those Democrats in the DLC and the Blue Dogs. So getting an endorsement from him does hold a lot more weight than you realize.

I'm a big believer that people do evolve, IG, so I have no doubt Ted Kennedy is a better man than "back then." Regardless, the Kennedys have been known to stoop when it's expedient. They shore each other up regardless of acts committed.

I would have more respect for him if he had owned up to what he did publicly. . . actually owned up.

[William Haskins]

And it's also because of that incident he never ran for President, unlike his brothers Jack and Bobby. He had the good sense not to, unlike someone else we know of, who has also driven impaired on alcohol and got hit with a felony drunk driving charge.


jesus, IG... remember what i said about typing before thinking (or researching).

ted kennedy launched a presidential bid in 1980 against jimmy carter and won 10 primaries.

[rugcat]

ted kennedy launched a presidential bid in 1980 against jimmy carter and won 10 primaries.Anyone remember this ad from the National Lampoon?

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r33/rugcat/TeddyVWad.jpg

[Joe270]

The girl simply died from his lack of judgment.

'Simply died'? You should read the police reports on the condition of the interior of the car, how she shredded the headrest and roof liner with her fingernails as she slowly drowned.

He just walked away to get another drink. Her life didn't matter one bit to him. He couldn't be bothered to lift a finger to try to help. He didn't call the police for help, either.

Of course that last bit is the dicey one. Some of us figure he planned to have the car removed and then just dump the body someplace. . .accidental drowning. Don't for a second think the Kennedys had cleaners on the payroll. If they didn't, Ted would have been political history long ago.

[Bird of Prey]

According to their later testimony, Gargan and party co-host Paul Markham then returned to the pond with Kennedy to try to rescue Kopechne. Both the other men reported that they also tried to dive into the water and rescue Kopechne multiple times.[7] Although there was a telephone at the Lawrence Cottage, and professional divers were available,[8] nobody called for help. When their efforts to rescue Kopechne failed, Kennedy claimed that he said to the others, "You take care of the other girls and I will take care of the accident".[9] Kennedy decided to return to his hotel. However, the Edgartown-Chappaquiddick ferry (which connects Chappaquiddick to the rest of the island) had shut down for the night, so Gargan and Markham drove Kennedy to the ferry crossing and Kennedy then swam across the 500-foot channel, back to Edgartown, where he fell asleep on his hotel bed at around 2 am.[10] According to Gargan and Markham, they then returned to the cottage and told the women nothing, at Kennedy's request.[11] According to Gargan and Markam's testimony, they assumed that Kennedy was going to inform the authorities once he got back to Edgartown, and thus did not do so themselves.[12]

Back at his hotel, Kennedy complained at 2:55 am to the hotel owner that he had been awoken by a noisy party.[11] By 7:30 am the next morning he was talking "casually" to the winner of the previous day's sailing race, with no indication that anything was amiss.[11] At 8 am, Gargan and Markham joined Kennedy at his hotel where they had a "heated conversation", even though the ferry operator did not see them take the ferry to get to Edgartown.[11] The three men subsequently crossed back to Chappaquidick Island on the ferry, where Kennedy made a series of phone calls from a payphone by the crossing to his friends for advice; he again did not report the accident to authorities.[11]

Earlier that morning, two fishermen saw the overturned car in the water and called the police.[13] A diver was sent down and discovered Kopechne's body.[13] The diver, John Farrar, would later testify at the inquest that Kopechne's body was pressed up in the car in the spot where an air bubble would have formed. He interpreted this to mean that Kopechne had survived for a while after the initial accident in the air bubble, and concluded that:

Had I received a call within five to ten minutes of the accident occurring, and was able, as I was the following morning, to be at the victim's side within twenty-five minutes of receiving the call, in such event there is a strong possibility that she would have been alive on removal from the submerged car.[5]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chappaquiddick_incident

Monstrous. I consider it negligent homicide, and my guess is - if it happened today - he'd be tried and convicted. Would that be the appropriate charge, Rugcat?

[mscelina]

Unfortunately, they do in mine. They're not a perfect family by any stretch, and sure they have their fair share of baggage, but who doesn't? Ted Kennedy was not malicious in the killing. He was drunk and did something stupid by driving impaired. The girl simply died from his lack of judgment. He would have gotten more serious charges had he not had a plea deal. That's hardly a "pay-off".

And it's also because of that incident he never ran for President, unlike his brothers Jack and Bobby. He had the good sense not to, unlike someone else we know of, who has also driven impaired on alcohol and got hit with a felony drunk driving charge.

Yet, despite this, he's still very influential, because in the years since his drunk driving accident, he still works for economic and social justice. And that is why he keeps getting elected. Because he works for the people who vote for him and is not bought off by the corporations, unlike those Democrats in the DLC and the Blue Dogs. So getting an endorsement from him does hold a lot more weight than you realize.


Oh, I see. It's okay for a drunk murderer to walk the streets freely and hold political power in this country, is it? And he did run for President in 1980 and was trounced soundly by Jimmy Freaking Carter of all people. And if you think he's not up to his hips in corporate 'donation' money...

...I shall leave the rest unsaid. Even a simple Google search would give you the information you needed.

[rugcat]

Monstrous. I consider it negligent homicide, and my guess is - if it happened today - he'd be tried and convicted. Would that be the appropriate charge, Rugcat?Different states have different statutes, and I'm not familiar with Mass. law. However, I think you could make a good case here for negligent homicide. (Usually a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail).

Most states also have an Automobile Homicide statute, which is the charge when someone dies in an accident and the driver is legally drunk. but the culpability doesn't rise to the level of manslaughter. Automobile homicide can get you five years and is a felony.

Which of course, is why no one called the cops. Kennedy is a lawyer and was aware of that. Without the testimony of police officers at the scene and a blood alcohol test, it would be very difficult to prove in court he had been legally intoxicated at the time of the accident.

And yes, the special treatment of politicians and celebrities was much more common back then. I think he would have been tried and convicted if it happened today.

Note that Congressman and ex governor Bill Janklow was convicted of manslaughter a few years ago for running a stop sign and killing a motorcyclist. The more severe charge was leveled because of his reckless speeding and long history of speeding tickets. And, perhaps, because it was South Dakota and not Massechussets.

[InfinityGoddess]

Oh, I see. It's okay for a drunk murderer to walk the streets freely and hold political power in this country, is it? And he did run for President in 1980 and was trounced soundly by Jimmy Freaking Carter of all people. And if you think he's not up to his hips in corporate 'donation' money...

...I shall leave the rest unsaid. Even a simple Google search would give you the information you needed.

Negligence does not equal murder. He was drunk and didn't have the right frame of mind. If anything, had he not plead out, he would have very likely faced more serious charges.

He did not run again. He messed up and he knew it.

[InfinityGoddess]

'Simply died'? You should read the police reports on the condition of the interior of the car, how she shredded the headrest and roof liner with her fingernails as she slowly drowned.

He just walked away to get another drink. Her life didn't matter one bit to him. He couldn't be bothered to lift a finger to try to help. He didn't call the police for help, either.

Of course that last bit is the dicey one. Some of us figure he planned to have the car removed and then just dump the body someplace. . .accidental drowning. Don't for a second think the Kennedys had cleaners on the payroll. If they didn't, Ted would have been political history long ago.

Think about it Joe. If you were drunk off your ass, would you be thinking about things like that? It was negligence. Nothing more.

jesus, IG... remember what i said about typing before thinking (or researching).

ted kennedy launched a presidential bid in 1980 against jimmy carter and won 10 primaries.

Yeah, but he didn't try again after that. He's perfectly happy where he is now.

And admittedly, you're right. I should have looked at my own source more carefully, but meh...classes are starting up again. I have another one tonight.

[William Haskins]

classes are starting up again. I have another one tonight.

take good notes.

[mscelina]

Negligence does not equal murder. He was drunk and didn't have the right frame of mind. If anything, had he not plead out, he would have very likely faced more serious charges.

He did not run again. He messed up and he knew it.

That does NOT make it okay. Not in the slightest. Are you aware that in this country a bartender can serve up to six months and have personal liability if they overserve someone whose DUI causes an injury or fatality? SIX MONTHS. And Ted Kennedy gets to walk away?

Totally messed up. Negligence DOES equal murder in some instances. This is one of them. The fact that he LEFT HER IN THE CAR TO DROWN AND DIE is more than negligence, it's CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE. 'Drunk and didn't have the right frame of mind' is absolutely no excuse.

And it's positively ridiculous that someone almost fifty years later should try to excuse it. Absofrickinlutely unfathomable. This kind of situational morality is the kind of thing that leads people like Kennedy to grossly misue their power in order to escape penalties.

[InfinityGoddess]

That does NOT make it okay. Not in the slightest. Are you aware that in this country a bartender can serve up to six months and have personal liability if they overserve someone whose DUI causes an injury or fatality? SIX MONTHS. And Ted Kennedy gets to walk away?

No, it was not okay. And he plead out to a lesser charge, so he got a lighter sentence as a result.

Totally messed up. Negligence DOES equal murder in some instances. This is one of them. The fact that he LEFT HER IN THE CAR TO DROWN AND DIE is more than negligence, it's CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE. 'Drunk and didn't have the right frame of mind' is absolutely no excuse.

It's still not the same category, legally speaking. It was not murder; if it was, he would not have been given the option of pleading guilty for a lesser charge of "leaving the scene of an accident". It would have been far more serious.

And it's positively ridiculous that someone almost fifty years later should try to excuse it. Absofrickinlutely unfathomable. This kind of situational morality is the kind of thing that leads people like Kennedy to grossly misue their power in order to escape penalties.

I don't excuse what he did back then. What he does now to redeem himself is what has mattered to me. But I don't appreciate people calling him a "murderer", when legally speaking, what he did was negligence, which is a far lesser crime than murder.

[mscelina]

Originally posted by Infinity Goddess --I don't excuse what he did back then. What he does now to redeem himself is what has mattered to me. But I don't appreciate people calling him a "murderer", when legally speaking, what he did was negligence, which is a far lesser crime than murder.

I see I'm going to have to walk you through this. In legal terms, leaving someone trapped in a car to drown and not reporting the accident until well after the chance of her survival counts as murder. Not first degree, premeditated murder but murder nonetheless. Shall we peruse some definitions and facts about the situation?

Noun 1. criminal negligence - (law) recklessly acting without reasonable caution and putting another person at risk of injury or death (or failing to do something with the same consequences)
culpable negligence
negligence, nonperformance, carelessness, neglect - failure to act with the prudence that a reasonable person would exercise under the same circumstances
law, jurisprudence - the collection of rules imposed by authority; "civilization presupposes respect for the law"; "the great problem for jurisprudence to allow freedom while enforcing order"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/criminal+negligence

Therefore what Kennedy did was criminal negligence plain and simple. As evidenced in this article in a 2004 issue of the National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/blyth/blyth200407200944.asp):

What everyone testified at the time was that Kennedy and Mary Jo left the party before midnight. Kennedy said he was driving her back to the ferry to Edgartown, and took a wrong turn, though he was very familiar with the roads on the island. His car toppled off a narrow wooden-planked bridge, a bridge that is in the opposite direction to the road that led to the ferry but is on the way to the beach. The car landed upside-down in eight feet of water and, Kennedy claimed that after escaping, he tried unsuccessfully to rescue Mary Jo. He then staggered back to the party, called out his cousin Joe Gargan and his pal Paul Markham, to return to the scene. What he didn't do, inexplicably, was seek help in a lighted house only yards from the bridge or use the fire-alarm phone at a fire station he passed on the way back to the party.

Myran Blyth then goes on to add:

The next morning Markham and Gargan were waiting for Kennedy when he arrived at 9 A.M. on the first ferry. The ferry operator said Kennedy appeared to be in a jovial mood, but probably only until he was told that his car had been found. Only then did Kennedy return and report the accident.

Hmm....does that match up with the definition of criminal negligence provided above? Perhaps, but let's try this one:

Criminal negligence from http://research.lawyers.com/glossary/criminal-negligence.htmlDefinition
: a gross deviation from the standard of care expected of a reasonable person that is manifest in a failure to protect others from a risk (as of death) deriving from one's conduct and that renders one criminally liable
compare gross negligence in this entry

And the result of said criminal negligence, which I believe is fairly obvious? This (unfortunately from Yahoo Answers but I don't have time at the moment to dig up a more reputable source) Kennedy pleaded guilty to leaving the scene of an accident after causing injury. He received a two month suspended sentence and one year probation. Questions remain about his attempts to save Kopechne and the possibility of interference in the investigation and the trial by his family and friends. Kopechne's death severely damaged Kennedy's reputation and is regarded as a major reason that he was never able to mount a successful campaign for President of the United States.

And all this from Googling and here for your reading pleasure in less than five minutes. Wow, that was hard.

GOOGLE IS YOUR FRIEND.

[InfinityGoddess]

The National Review is hardly an unbiased source of information. It is a neo-conservative publication, prone to bias against liberals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chappaquiddick_incident

That is the kind I was looking for.

[Dawno]

I'm going to be splitting out any references to Chappaquiddick and moving them all to TIO pretty damn soon if this doesn't stop. These arguments go no where, nobody's going to move from their positions on them. You've all had your say - now move on.