2008 Primaries Thread 3: The Rejecting and Denouncening

I've expected the worst from the electorate since 1980 and they havent surprised me yet.

-- Dr Morbius, Wednesday, April 23, 2008 9:35 AM (13 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

proving this statement UNtrue^^^ CASE CLOSED! MORBS GULITY *slam slam*

Don't forget '96 too. Would Dole have been a lesser evil than Clinton as well?

well sit on that charge in case his case gets overturned on appeal

Interesting to compare the map of this year's Dem primary to the '76 map:

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/demmap/

In both cases, it's interesting how the appeal of various candidates seems to break down along regional lines.

Would Dole have been a lesser evil than Clinton as well?

The correct answer is, Who cares?

u cares - see upthread

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2419/2435253590_dc4bf2cb65_o.jpg

he he

I don't vote for the evil of two lessers, kiddo

morbs just man up and admit to my ferocious pwning of yr knee jerk primaries thread bullshit

Trying to decode that, wtf you sayin?

Perrin on Hill-Rod's nuke-rattlin:

That Iran lacks nukes and is nowhere near possessing them means nothing, nor does the idea that a nuclear-armed Iran would be suicidal enough to hit Israel to begin with. All that matters is for Hillary to appear genocidal, a vital character trait that U.S. presidents must display in order to be taken seriously. Hey, works for me, though I suspect that a President Hillary would warm up by attacking a few smaller, defenseless nations, just to get the blood pumping. Obliteration should never be served cold... Still, give the ol' gal crazy style points. She clearly understands that for a significant chunk of Americana, mass murder can be a positive thing, so long as it beats the towelheads down and away from our precious fuel. I mean, what would we do without NASCAR?

http://dennisperrin.blogspot.com/2008/04/desolation-jam.html

I think that Hil was smart to say what she did about Iran. Say a few meaningless hardman words so there's no chink in your armor that can be attacked

hils hardman words hardly number in the few at this point

http://thepage.time.com/2008/04/23/clinton-snags-prominent-southern-blue-dog-superdelegate/

This guy Dennis Perrin sounds like an idiot. Who is he speaking for? Who is it that requires candidates to sound genocidal? Not him, I guess. So who?

Oh wait I know. "Those". As in, "There are those who say..."

Dennis Perrin sounds like an idiot.

I wouldn't know

Who is it that requires candidates to sound genocidal? Not him, I guess. So who?

You know, Tracer. (srch Gene Wilder "salt of the earth" speech from Blazing Saddles)

All prezzes are genocidal, it's part of the job.

It's those pesky voters, isn't it?

All prezzes are genocidal, it's part of the job.

I forgot that part of the Oath

no, you know, the part of the job the prez learns lots more about btwn election & inauguration.

ohhhhhh

jw, once in the White House, Mme Rodham would shore up the chinks in her pacifist armor acc to family tradition, i.e. bombing aspirin factories in the Sudan.

i dont think she would strand chinese people on a beach!

thatsracist.lol

All prezzes are genocidal, it's part of the job.

http://www.aigenom.com/

I guess you could argue it has a history going back to at least Andrew Jackson.

Morbius's excessive pure-soul-ism is tiring because 1) there is little room in politics (left, right or creamy center) for pure souls and 2) the American presidency has never been a place to find leftist politicians. Ok, you won't compromise your "values" (that you exemplify primarily through inane bitching) by voting for a presidential candidate. Congratulations, your record is spotless! But consider that other people have decided that politics, actually getting the right things done, might require some sort of compromise, particularly in a national election in a country as fucked up and stupid as the US. I'm going to vote Obama, not because he's a pure soul, or because I agree with all his positions, or because I think he's never told a lie, or because he gives me a hard on. I'm going to vote for him because I think things I care about might have a chance to get done under his administration, where they wouldn't under Clinton or McCain. Jesus Christ, a candidate who's a black scholar who lived abroad and consorts with radicals and actually might get rid of NAFTA and you won't vote for him because he doesn't piss champagne? Get over yourself.

I voted for him in the primary, Gavin.

the "pure soul" thing is tired crap, I don't believe in that.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/629/629/7360254.stm

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/042308DailyUpdateGraph1_rms7ero.gif

McCain takes the high ground, regarding the suggestion that Lee Atwater-esque attack ads may run in NC:

In an attempt to lay down a marker on racially-motivated tactics, McCain's campaign sends word that the candidate himself sent a strongly-worded email to North Carolina GOP chair Linda Daves regarding their anti-Obama ad:

Dear Chairman Daves,

From the beginning of this election, I have been committed to running a respectful campaign based upon an honest debate about the great issues confronting America today. I expect all state parties to do so as well. The television advertisement you are planning to air degrades our civics and distracts us from the very real differences we have with the Democrats. In the strongest terms, I implore you to not run this advertisement.

This ad does not live up to the very high standards we should hold ourselves to in this campaign. We need to run a campaign that is worthy of the people we seek to serve. There is no doubt that we will draw sharp contrasts with the Democrats on fundamental issues critical to the future course of our country. But we need not engage in political tactics that only seek to divide the American people.

Once again, it is imperative that you withdraw this offensive advertisement.

John McCain

jw, once in the White House, Mme Rodham would shore up the chinks in her pacifist armor acc to family tradition, i.e. bombing aspirin factories in the Sudan.

this is your occasional reminder that this "Rodham" business is so infantile as to call immediately into question any other political opinions you might express

this from a guy who doesn't bag on you constantly or discount you for stuff you've said elsewhere, mind you. but "Rodham," constantly? Tee-hee! Tell Rush that one, I'm sure he'll love it!

it's stuff like that that reminds me that it's not that Morbs is a true-believer, it's that he's a tabloid reader

you guys still pay attention to morbs huh

who?

just reminding you what the clown's name on her own is.

I'm thinking of switching to Hill-Rod or Cassius Clay.

Hill-Rod plz

Hillary de la Romanee-Conti.

the nicknames-for-politicos-in-use-by-exactly-nobody-else are the best thing about morbs posts!

thank you?

btw John, I haven't listened to Rush in 12 years or so, but he could be funny once in awhile. Called Paul Tsongas "tax-on-gas."

see?

just reminding you what the clown's name on her own is.

that isn't the effect of what you're doing, no

really? what other effect does it have? I don't particularly see what the big deal is.

I take it as subtle criticism of Hillary's craven bending to reactionary attitudes when she dropped the "Rodham" and started going by "Clinton" after Bill's 1980 gubernatorial defeat.

STOOPID BRITISHER QUESTION TIME:

So OK, Clinton won by nine points in the Pennsylvania primary, isn't that just scraping through? Does it really look that good for her?

It's a pretty nice margin of victory. The only problem is that in terms of delegate math, it doesn't change the fact that she has basically zero chance of exceeding Obama in elected delegates.

she's spinning it as a huge positive, but yeah, basically it changes nothing.

press chatter notwithstanding ("Why can't Obama put Hillary away?" etc.)

should also be noted that Clinton victory in PA was predicted months ago, none of this surprising to anybody.