Here's your primaries open thread; please keep it to primaries coverage. The 'Nut and I have sent our ballots in. Campaigns, please stop mailing us stuff. (Save a tree, stop Jules Koppel-Bailey!)
Primary Madness Open Thread
Worst thing I've ever seen in Oregon politics. Anyone got a topper?
Do you report it without verifying the facts?
This one has to be a new low in Oregon politics.
I'm not a Big Erickson fan but this attack accusing him of paying for an abortion many years ago with little or no proof (one very old email) has to be challenged.
Some reporter or many reporters have to do somthing about this.
Assignment editors, Editors, Producers, News Directors... get you people on this now.
First off, yes, Mannix's mail piece is beyond sleazy. I hope it will backfire on him, but this is a Republican primary in a district heavily populated by evangelicals who vote with their genitals. (IOW, abortion trumps anything.)
That said, I can't believe that Mike Erickson, whom I've met and for whom I have some personal respect, has run such an empty campaign. Every ad talks only about how Kevin's for taxes and how he's agin' 'em. All the tax votes with which he takes issue are state matters, and this is a national office. Not one word about what Erickson is for.
Both deserve to lose and, though I wouldn't have believed it a month ago, I suspect that by the time the general election is over, they both will have.
An added petition to the Clinton campaign: stop calling us, and no more recorded pleas from Chelsea Clinton. We've already voted. (For Obama, as it happens, but his people aren't calling, probably because he expects to win Oregon, and Clinton needs money as well as votes.)
Five Clinton calls in five days, enough already!
I am a pro-Hillary caller in Springfield.
Unfortunately, people are getting called several times sometimes. The database does not appear (at least to me) to be updating properly to delete those already called and those who have already voted. I always appologize if that is the case.
We never ask for money. The purpose is to make sure Hillary supporters vote.
The calls are going to some No Call List numbers because they are live (not recorded) and they are from a politcal campaign. Some people do not understand that and are upset. Unfortunate.
Hopefully the system will work better this fall. Thankfully the primary will be over Tuesday.
I guess Hillary's database didn't update to tell her she is going to get her ass kicked in Oregon. Race is over.
An Obama supporter thought it would be a good idea to drive all around the Pearl a couple weeks ago and lay down the horn so people would see his signs. I'm from Oregon; I hate car horns!
Ask Obama or his staff to respond to the allegations
Larry Sinclair has been making.
Larry has claimed that Barack Obama's drug
practices are much more recent than he claims.
Larry has also subpoenaed Barack
Obama, David Axelrod, and the campaign for phone records in connection
with an execution-style murder of Donald Young.
§ Donald Young was the choirmaster of Obama's much maligned
Trinity church.
§ Donald Young had been in contact with Larry until his
death.
It turns out that Donald was also gay.
Parties unknown executed Donald and several other members of Chicago’s gay
community.
Why is Larry doing this?
It's pretty widely known that Larry Sinclair murdered Donald Young as part of some weird love triangle. There hasn't been enough evidence for a conviction yet, but the DA's saying that's just a matter of time. He should probably look for a better scapegoat than Barack Obama, but whatever.
The first question the people who are phone banking would ask is; "Have you submitted your ballot yet?" That would save a lot of the time they have to call people on the phones. I've just started cutting people off. :)
For the record, I'm a liberal Democrat and won't be voting in the 5th Congressional district primary. With that said, I vote Erickson the bigger sleaze ball. Now I realize what Mannix did is sleazy. But given Erickson’s claim of “pro-life” then pays for his girlfriend’s abortion, I think the more hypocritical of the two is Erickson. And remember, Erickson is a proven liar – just look at the record. Plus if memory serves, he's refused to debate Mannix and other Republicans vying for their party’s 5th US District congressional party nomination.
I answer and say hello. I wait one second. If I hear nothing, I automatically hangup, all the time. If I hear a recording, I automatically hang up every time. If you want me to get the message, have a live person call me. If, after I say hello, I hear the person on the other end say "Hello?", I tell them that is my line and is also their cue to start talking. I then inform them that they are wasting my time and to go learn how to properly talk on the phone before calling me again. Usually, those are computer generated calls and when you answer it signals a person to pickup on it. They did not hear you answer and so begin by saying hello to make sure they are talking to you. I have no time for computer generated calls.
I don't care to hear Bill or Chelsea tell me about how they feel about Hillary. Same with Michelle about Barak. Or whatever Mrs. McCains name is about John.
And, I have heard enough from all of them. I am tired. This campaign has gone on long enough... too long. And I don't like any of the Presidential candidates. None of them impress me. What to do. Already voted for Obama. Come November, I don't know what I am going to do yet. Both of the candidates are going to have to come up with some real answers, not feel good statements that are general and have no real meaning other than sounding good or pandering to the audience of the moment. Energy is the #1 most important thing right now because it affects everything. And none of the candidates is saying the truth about what is needed to solve the problem.
Except in cases of genuine physical hardship, NO ONE SHOULD EVER MAIL IN THEIR BALLOT OR OTHERWISE VOTE EARLY. Instead, drop it off at a drop site on election day! You never know what will transpire in a campaign's final days, e.g., whether that Senatorial candidate you voted for will turn out to be a closet KKK member or sex perv or something. Campaigns will often sit on damaging info about an opponent until a week or so before the election, so as to do maximum damage.
Voting early is like reviewing a movie that you left halfway through. Please stop it! It's tragic that Oregon's electoral system actually encourages this practice.
"whether that candidate you voted for will turn out to be a closet KKK member..."
I've heard this about Obama! Can it be true?????
NO ONE SHOULD EVER MAIL IN THEIR BALLOT OR OTHERWISE VOTE EARLY. Instead, drop it off at a drop site on election day!
We rode our bikes down and put them in the collection boxes.
You never know what will transpire in a campaign's final days, e.g., whether that Senatorial candidate you voted for will turn out to be a closet KKK member or sex perv or something. Campaigns will often sit on damaging info about an opponent until a week or so before the election, so as to do maximum damage.
Voting early is like reviewing a movie that you left halfway through.
Heh. Given some of the members we currently have in our ruling class, I would be surpised if they did NOT have some skeletons in their closets.
One thing that interests me, tho, is endorsements. Various news/opinion/blogs organizations and groups make their endorsements well before election. Doesn't that same logic you give lend itself to Jack Bog getting a faceful o flounder, not to mention the O or WWeek? Admittedly, an endorsement isn't a vote, but why would they do their endorsements so early as well?
-------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: my opinions are my own, not those of OMI or any employer.
We rode our bikes down and put them in the collection boxes.
How did you get away with that? I thought USPS had imposed a size and weight restriction on packages dropped in collection boxes a few years ago.
I've known, or knew about, the people who I voted for for years. Why would I wait until the last minute for some scare tactic to try and induce a knee jerk reaction vote? And I just walked mine down to the eastside election office - if I had waited I might have been in danger of being hit by the car that went through the front window.
My wife and I voted for Billary Clintoon as a particiapants of Operation Chaos, we will change back to the GOP after the election.
this is what I think is a flaw in the mail system. I am a habitual procrastinator, but some years I vote early just so I won't forget or misplace the ballot. this was an early year, and then the macpherson anti-kroger ads began running. I had heard mildly good things about macpherson, and voted for him. Once I saw the dishonest tv spots macpherson ran, I knew I not only did not want him as AG, but hoped we could keep him away from any office of public trust. too late. my ballot had been dropped off.
Tell me when, where, or how to vote. I mailed my ballot in the day I got it, just to avoid those last-minute campaign gimmicks.
The Gordon Smith ad that paints him as the 'candidate for change' is beyond laughable. I mean, what reasonable, intelligent adult (Rep. or Dem.) who's paid ANY attention will believe that? Gordon Smith is the VERY thing that needs change. I've tried to call the Friends of Gordon Smith office to mock and ridicule whoever came up with that, but the annoying girl who answers won't put me through.
Hey sucka' them's fightin' words. Don't shame me for my choices within the democratic process. I'll vote for who I want, WHEN I want; MYOB. Don't like the vote by mail system? Work for change.
re: "operation chaos" oooooh scary! You ditto head chumps make me laugh.
Mb
Has Obama announced where he's going to be on his Ore visit on Friday.
Anyone know where?
Lynn, the point I was making is that voting before election day is ill-advised. Whether you mail your ballot or drop it off is irrelevant. (I wish elections officials would not encourage this practice by setting up ballot drop-off sites so early. They should wait until the day before election day at the earliest.)
I wonder how many Republicans are now wishing they could change their vote in the Mannix-Erickson race, and how many more will wish they could if it becomes clear who's lying.
Another problem with early voting is that it short-circuits campaigns that depend on voter education (these tend to be liberal/progressive in nature). In the past decade I've seen several good candidates/measures go down to a close defeat (and several bad ones eke out a close victory) despite polls showing a clear trend in the other direction in the last days of the campaign. Surely early voting played a role in at least some of these outcomes.
Oregon's mail-based voting system does have some advantages. I do like getting my ballot early so I can take some time to look it over and decide on each race. But one of the unfortunate consequences of the system has been to foster a culture of early voting that probably can't be undone without major changes to the system, which are unlikely to occur. Too bad.
A candidate's twenty plus year history is hard to change in 20 days or less. It is possible to make highly educated votes well before May 20th. It is also possible to make reactionary votes at the last minute. To each their own.
And always will. Make my decisions based on solid research and info in the voters pamphlet. Don't care what smear is out there.... it's still smear. And IMHO, the later the smear comes, the more likely that it'll prove false once there's time post-election to have it refuted.
And voting early gets you onto a list of "already voted".... which cuts down considerably on the annoying phone calls. Most campaigns get the already voted lists frequently, and purge those names from their robo-calls to cut down on costs and increase productivity.
Marcia's paranoia is showing.
Since the voters pamphlets come out BEFORE the ballots due, anyone with a modicum of intelligence can figure out both the candidates and the issues prior to receiving their ballot. Whatever your pursonal issues are; waiting for the last minute garbage to surface and foul the waters is not a legitimate reason to wait.
I am sure early voting has affected some races in the past, but fraud is a much larger factor. I could vote six times in the primary. The wife works in an adult foster care home.
I seriously doubt that you would get away with voting six times in the primary, as signatures are checked. There's really no evidence that anyone has managed such fraud, so unless you have evidence, stop theorizing.
And apparently Jules Kopel-Bailey will have to send you another mail piece so you spell his name correctly. ;)
Just wondering which ads had the most impact in this race.
The MacPherson spots helped me decide to vote AGAINST him. Really stupid stuff.
And while I was about to give up on Novick because of his quirky ads, it did make me want to know more about him.
I don't like what Merkley's ads did. He used his wife and kid, but I still don't know what kind of Senator he'd be. Erickson's ads looked pretty generic.
Here it is, hours after the Town Hall ended, and there's no link on the main page of the kgw.com website about it? It was easier to find the Oregonian's photos of the even on flickr than to find:
http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_051508_politics_hillary_clinto...
Actually the AP wire story about the Town Hall gets more prominence, and it doesn't even mention KGW:
http://www.kgw.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D90N5T380.html
Why wasn't KGW more aggressive about publicizing the Town Hall online?
I was out and about at the farmers market and it looked like a campaign rally. Everyone had people out there and after a while it got annoying. From what I understand Chelsea Clinton was out here. That would explain why KGW had a truck sitting in the Beaverton Library parking lot.
All I can say is that Chelsea Clinton is one good looking gal.
Her parents well we won't discuss all the dirty corruption.
But Chelsea Clinton looks nice,
why are these people harumphing about marcia's post? She votes late to see if any new information comes in.
the anon. who said anyone with a modicum of intelligence could decide based on the voter pamphlet is simply factually wrong.
nowhere in the voter pamphlet statement did Greg Macpherson say "I am a formerly honorable person who will twist and distort the facts to get elected." We did not find that out until his tv smear ads ran.
Mannix we knew about. This guy, endorsed by some decent people, was startling in his sudden plunge into gutter politics.
--no longer a quick brown fox
We weren't harumphing marcia because she votes late.... some of us took offense at her insistance that we were terribly wrong to vote early. She is free to vote any way she wants. She's even free to recommend her paranoia to others. And we are free to tell her to pipe down and let the system work the way it was intended.
Anyone who decides who to vote for based on 30 second ads in the final days of a desparate campaign gets what they deserve anyway.
Some of us rely on more reasoned choices. Some of us turn off the TV. Or use the mute button.
That's what I was saying. I spend enough of my time decyphering the candidates. I tend to be informed about the issues and the candidates. So, I'm not going to let a plethora of 30-second pointed political ads sway me. I hate commercials anyways. :)
Voting early is better than not voting at all, though Marcia has a point about late-breaking information. Not all of it can be described as a "smear." Remember GW Bush's drunk-driving conviction? That came to light about a week before the election. I wouldn't consider that a smear. It was accurate, relevant information that was kept under wraps by the campaign. I also worry about the potential for fraud that surely accompanies the mass mailing of ballots and voting without the oversight of poll-watchers.
What bothers me most about Oregon's system, though, is the loss of the traditional election day. There's something valuable about the process itself, which is/was a communal activity involving civic-minded volunteers and meeting your neighbors at the polling station. I wish Oregon would adopt the California system, where anyone who wants an absentee ballot can request and receive one -- without having to state a reason -- but the default position is in-person voting. (And yes, I personally wait until election day to drop off my ballot. It's the next best thing to old-fashioned voting.)
Oregon used that system 10 years ago this May - that was my first election and I decided to go to the polls knowing it would be my last opporuntity to do so. At the time there was overwelling support for an all mail-in election, and I still support it. The Bush's drunk driving issue taht you refer to in your post was well known to savy voters well before the election. Again, this is a democracy and as such people should be allowed to vote as they see fit - thus the system is subjective.
Obama rally merits a second segment mention on Fox12 following an A block of a home invasion robbery, kid pulled from a river and hot temperatures.
I know we've had the discussion here before about the Fox12 philosophy, but to me, every lead segment of their newscasts looks the same, day after freaking day.
I don't like mass vote by mail. I know it was to get more people involved and to make it more convenient.
There was nothing wrong with the system we had. It, in fact, was better, in my opinion. Quality is better than quantity. You had to make an effort to go to the polls to vote. That means only the ones that were, supposedly, informed and cared would make that effort to vote. Voting is one of those things that you should make the effort to do. I know that some cannot always get to the polls. I never had a problem. We had vote by mail in that system.....it was called "absentee ballot". I never had a problem getting one and using it.
How much does it cost to mail all ballots now and to pay someone to check all signatures? If people don't care to make the effort to go to the polls to vote or get an absentee ballot, then they shouldn't be voting.
Wow, it sounds like you're suggesting something close to oligarchy. "Quality is better than quantity?" Not in a democracy. Democracies let even the dumb ones, the uninvolved ones, the uninformed ones, even the ones who get their info from Fox, vote.
Personally, I'm a better and more informed voter thanks to mail in ballots. I can spend a few hours with the internet, the voters information booklet, and my ballot, and make a reasoned judgment about each race and issue.
The purpose of democracy is to allow everyone's voice to be heard... even the shiftworker, those who are too frail to face a rainy Portland November morning, those with small children whose needs must come first, and those disorganized enough to miss the deadline for applying for an absentee ballot, or whose lives became more complicated in between the absentee request date and the election.
Your narrow-minded post makes me very glad that it's not just people like you voting in our elections.
I walked into the PSU Student Union to find nice people waving some Merkley signs. Turns out they were asked to go outside for various reasons. What I think is interesting is that they didn't know that they shouldn't have been inside the Student Union building at all.
Here's an interesting fact about Obama. In explaining why he's been so reluctant to wear a flag pin or to place his hand over his heart during the National Anthem, Obama said -- "As I've said about the flag pin, I don't want to be perceived as taking sides. There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression. And the anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all? It should be swapped for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song 'I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing.' If that were our anthem, then I might salute it."
I guess I must be old-fashioned because I still get goosebumps and feel proud when I hear the National Anthem, 'The Star-Spangled Banner,' which is a poem about the pride of living in a democratic republic, of being able to continue to see the symbol of American freedom -- the flag --by the symbolic light of the battles (both actual and legislative) that have been fought to preserve, protect and defend our freedoms and our democratic republic. Yet Obama sees it as a 'war-like message' and the flag as a 'symbol of oppression'? That comment says two things to me: a) Obama hasn't the intelligence to appreciate poetic metaphor; and b) he's concerned about being perceived by the rest of the world as 'taking sides' with America, in other words of being 'pro American.'
That statement makes it clear why Obama and his wife continue their membership in Rev. Wright's church, which is steeped in anti-American, pro-Muslim, pro-terrorist* views, and why, as they've said on many occasions, they are not proud of this country. They apparently do not recognize nor appreciate the freedom from religious oppression and other important freedoms upon which our democratic republic was founded, which American citizens have fought so hard to preserve, protect and defend. If that's the case, why do the Obama's want so badly to lead this country? Why do so many want so badly to allow the Obama's the opportunity to sell out this country to their anti-American, pro-Muslim, pro-terrorist supporters and financial backers?
Please don't attack me as some wild-eyed extreme right wing Republican. I'm a lifelong liberal Democrat. Yes, our country has made grave mistakes of which I'm not proud. Yes, we have many complex problems to solve. Yes, the past eight years have taken a toll on all of us. But the freedoms embodied in our Bill of Rights, the Constitution and our democratic republic are great accomplishments in the history of civilization, accomplishments in which all Americans should take justifiable pride, and dedicate themselves to making this country better for all of us and making this country a better citizen of the world. I don't see any possible way that we can work together at home or abroad toward correcting past mistakes, solving our problems or cleaning up the mess made by the current administration by supporting a Presidential nominee who's afraid of 'taking sides' with America, and whose wife has never before been proud of this country. It seems to me that we ought to at least start by supporting a nominee who wants to help us work to improve our country and rekindle our pride in what's right about America, not one who constantly condemns us for past mistakes and douses our justifiable pride in our country with anti-American rhetoric. I know that I could never get goosebumps or feel proud hearing as the American anthem a song like 'I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing' -- known worldwide as the advertising tune for a popular U.S. softdrink.
*Last year, Wright used the 'Pastor's Page' of the church newsletter to reprint the Hamas manifesto, which claims terrorism is a valid form of resistance, refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist and compares the Hamas charter -- which calls for the murder of Jews -- to the Declaration of Independence. Wright's monthly 'Trumpet' magazine has frequently featured Obama on its cover, including one showing Obama alongside U.S. Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan.
You're either easily taken in by email forwards, or you're a concern troll.
Just FYI in case it's the former: There are no deposed African leaders trying to smuggle money out of the country who will give you a cut for helping them, nor can your pocket snake be turned into an anaconda with a simple herbal pill, turning you into a Legendary Hero of Rumor. Bill Gates is not giving money away for forwarding an email, and there are no bored Russian girls who want to meet you unless you're willing to pay $24.99 a minute. And robbers are not knocking women out in parking lots with poison perfume.
If it's the latter, get the hell out of my forum. Not for being anti-Obama, just for being a concern troll. I hate concern trolls of all political stripes.
-----
Lynn Siprelle * Fairy Blogmother
Obama's views would seem quite reasonable in much of the world, but only US citizens can vote here, so Obama is giving McCain pretty explosive ammunition for the general election.
It's not "anti-American" to criticize the U.S. government for its many shortcomings, as the Rev. Wright (a former Marine) has done. And no state, not even Israel, has the "right" to exist. States are a human creation and (ideally) can be established or dissolved as necessary.
Barack Obama has my respect for understanding that the outward symbols of a country have nothing to do with real patriotism. If he didn't love his country deeply he wouldn't bother running for President. (The same is true of Clinton and McCain, much as I dislike their politics.)
Please don't attack me as some wild-eyed extreme right wing Republican.
Fine.
I'll attack you for what you are:
An idiot.
Instead of regurgitating the same pap and bullshit that is spouted over and over, do a tiny bit of research you freedom-hating moron.
I'd offer to do it for you, but I am fundementally lazy, so I think I'll let one of the most concise commentators I have had the pleasure of reading do it for me.
-------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: my opinions are my own, not those of OMI or any employer.
I'm not even an Obama supporter and the minute I read that "quote" I smelled a rat. It's even on Snopes. Here's a link:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/stance.asp
Bottom line, that quote from Obama is a fake. Seriously people.
ck, if you were half the patriot you seem to think you are, you'd know that you do not place your hand over your heart during the national anthem! You do that for the Pledge of Allegiance. When the anthem is played, you are supposed to stand at attention with your hands AT YOUR SIDES. Obama does both correctly. And when, pray tell, has Obama ever spouted "anti-American rhetoric"?
Candidates usually do the opposite of what they promise. The method of predicting what they will really do is to look at their advisors' policies.
Obama's advisors are Brzezinski on foreign policy (divide and conquer, confront Russia and China) and Austan Goolsbee on the economy (Skull and Bonesman, Wall Streeter, Rob the Poor to Enrich the Rich, privatize Social Security to shore up the hedge funds and the multi-billion $ salaries of the fund managers. You read that right - one of them made $3.7 billion last year for helping ethnically cleanse neighborhoods through foreclosures and ripoff loans). No wonder the elite are throwing money at the Obama campaign.
This analysis comes from Webster Tarpley, author of the book "Obama The Postmodern Coup: Making of a Manchurian Candidate." It includes a number of articles on Obama that may be viewed here:
http://www.waronfreedom.org/tarpley/obamarticls.htm
OBAMA ECONOMIC TEAM WANTS TO PRIVATIZE SOCIAL SECURITY
AFTER SUPER TUESDAY: WHY OBAMA IS A SURE LOSER
Obama Economic Controller Is Skull And Bones Member
Obama is not a progressive. NOT even close
Daily kos founder and Obama cheerleader was CIA covert ops trainee
OBAMA VULNERABLE TO ROVIANS ON REZKO
OBAMA FRONTS WALL ST. INFRASTRUCTURE SWINDLE
What is at stake in election 2008
BRZEZINSKI SEIZING CONTROL OVER US POLICY IN SLOW-MOTION CREEPING COUP
The book itself, Obama - The Postmodern Coup: Making of a Manchurian Candidate, can be downloaded here.
It documents from published sources how Samuel Huntington and Brzezinski started planning years ago for the current swing to the left in the American electorate, in order to hijack it for their right-wing agenda. Their hijack vehicle is Obama and the NED / left CIA color revolution paraphernalia around him, which those outfits perfected in Eastern Europe and are importing to the USA! Now you too can have a neofascist postmodern coup, with all the thrills - great slogans like "hope" and "change," mass rallies with a trained orator - lots of fun, until the real "change" hits the fan.
Tarpley published a new article today entitled
BARACK OBAMA: VENTRILOQUIST'S DUMMY
ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI: VENTRILOQUIST
In this article (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarOnFreedom/message/4376) he quotes this statement Obama made at a recent campaign stop in Oregon:
"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said. "That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added. If India and China's "carbon footprint gets as big as ours, we're gone." (AFP)
Tarpley compares the remarks to a passage in Zbigniew Brzezinski's recent book "Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower" - and shows the exact same set of ideas is in each.
Zbig has already been called "Obama's Brain" by The Economist.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2007/03/a_new_brain_fo...
Tarpley's take on the green-hued rhetoric is that Obama has been groomed by Zbig to impose draconian austerity and demolish what's left of the New Deal.
I guess that could be the death of both grand old parties! And a lot of people, too, with Zbig's foreign policy ideas - he was the architect of the Afghan-Soviet war.
Any cites besides a collection of links to some nut's message board posts? I mean, except for the Economist article, which is downright glowing in its approval of Mr. Brzezinski?
Since I can remember anytime a candidate gets close to the nomination, people start with the conspiracy theories, random allegations and flat lies.
Obama is no different.
With Clinton we had the Vince Foster folks, who thought the Clintons somehow had him killed, when his death was ruled a suicide. For years (eight actually) the allegation festered and lived on, like a hard-to-kill bacteria.
With Bush it was the Saudi connection and allowing 9/11 to happen and Rove, Cheney and the gang starting the war for oil. Boy, that's worked well for us. I love my low gas prices because we invaded Iraq. Now the argument is they started the war to raise gas prices so their oil buddies could get rich.
You can't debate or reason with these people. They are looking for monsters under the bed and will use just about anything to "prove" their point.
I just like the show. Sit back, watch the insanity justify itself and munch on popcorn. If nothing else, I wonder what these folks could do if they put their brainpower to something helpful?
Now excuse me, I have an e-mail to read from a missionary who describes Obama's connection to Kenyan politics and mass murder -- another glowing example of how many people forgot to take their meds this morning.
I was just talking to a few Hillary workers (the shirt was a dead give-away). I asked who they were going to support when she didn't get the party nomination. One of them said she was actually considering not voting. I asked if Nader was a possibility and she said no. I suggested not voting would just be shooting herself in the foot. Both of these women appeared to be in their late 50s to early 60s and the one who was doing the talking said she'd never missed an opportunity to vote. She indicated she felt Hillary had been so wronged that she just couldn't see herself voting for someone else. I asked who had harmed Hillary and she said I should research it. I assured her that I was well informed and just didn't get it.
Question: What the hell is she talking about? The only abuse that I can see Hillary having received (except what any Presidential candidate should expect) is not being given what she felt entitled to.
I cannot find it now but there was a great article on how women like the ones you met really saw Hillary's life as very similar to their own. They struggled against an oppressive system and when they were best positioned to get the prize some younger, less experienced, good looking man came along and took it all away. Hillary's story played the same tune these ladies have sung for a long time. While the facts are subjective, this is the perspective that many people vote on. Then there are small hints too like how Obama would always get the chair for Clinton before the earlier debates began (seen as degrading) and his tone during said debates was considered condescending. On that last one, Obama did have an annoying way of just brushing off a position like holding Cuba to some standards before meeting Castro, before he took them up himself. Now only if Obama would agree that using unilateral force against/in Pakistan in is not a good idea regardless of what the CIA says. Then I would sleep better. Hope that clarifies some of it.
Here's a new one...and a decent value. You can buy somewhat diluted "breath" from Barack Obama's Oregon campaign stop.
See www.obamair.com
OUCH... pretty rough sledding.
Who we tossing it to? Correspondants little prepared with even less to say, TD craziness with picking up which location was on-air. Not sure all the Novick "Left Hook" jokes need to be delivered by a reporter.
Plus, I gotta ask, is there any different manner to cover a live shot at a election party than:
MCU:Reporter
ZOOM OUT:Poorly illuminated room with folks with drink in hand attempting not to look at camera
PAN:More of same
ZOOM IN MCU:Reporter
Maybe run a package? A graphic? Weeping? I know they think a live shot may be newsworthy, but unless the candidate is there speaking, it's just folks hanging out a a bad party.
Do better in November...
SCJ
In the interest of getting it right, I need to correct that it was the 8:00pm broadcast I was refering to above. I was viewing it on the East Coast where it was 11:00pm locally.
SCJ
Hillary is, of course, convinced that the Democrats owe her the nomination for not divorcing Bill when he was president. I doubt anyone, least of all Barack Obama, is going to convince her otherwise (though he should at least try offering her a high cabinet position, like Secretary of State or Attorney General). What's really tragic is that Hillary would very likely be president now if she had dared challenge Bush in 2004 as many leading Democrats urged her to do. One thing I've learned the hard way is that you have to grab opportunities when they arise, because they may not still be there when you finally decide you're "ready". She waited too long and the younger generation caught up to her. Too bad.
That said, Obama clearly has his work cut out for him in bringing Hillary's hard-core supporters back into the fold. His choice of a running-mate will be key. He probably has to choose a woman from a "red" or swing state, such as Gov. Napolitano of Arizona or Sebelius (sp?) of Kansas. Of course, he could offer it to Hillary but I don't think she'd accept. Joining the ticket would mean she would be expected to campaign not only *for* him, but *with* him, and I don't think she can bring herself to do that.
I agree, she is awesome and would be very powerful as a running-mate for BO. And then in eight years or so, she could be President!
Viewer Rick
She is just another power hungry lying politician. She cannot tell the truth any more than the others. They have tried to remake her image lately as being nice and experienced. She is no more experienced than most other senators. She is not really all that nice, either. Anyone who has paid attention the last 16 years should know that.
There really is not much difference between Obama and Hillary except for a few minor differences in some ideas. The difference is who appeals to people and who they perceive to have the better personality. Being a Dem, I voted for Obama. He is more likeable. He does not come across as a power hungry, do anything you can to get what you want, person. Perhaps he also is but he does not project that. For me, it has nothing to do with electing a female. It is basically I just don't like her. Come November, I will probably vote Obama because McCain does not appear to be any different than the Dems for the most part. If Hillary is on the ticket, I will not vote for Obama (the ticket). Probably not McCain, either. But, reality is that I live in Oregon and whether I vote or not, Oregon will vote the Democrat ticket anyway. They just won't have my help.
It is time for someone other than Bush or Clinton in the Whitehouse. Those two families have been in there far too long.
Remember, it is not the President that gets things done and laws made or changed. It is the Congress. The three running for President right now have been there for a long time. They are partially to blame for why things are so bad (according to most everyone) now. The Democrats have been in control of both houses the last four years and they have not produced anything of value to the country other than oppose Bush. Although polls show Bush as the lowest rating ever for a President, they are even lower for Congress. But that is not promoted much. The three major contenders are part of that lowest rating. If they couldn't get anything done while in the house or Senate while they were in a position to do it, what makes you think they will get it done if they are President.
They are also to be blamed for the Energy situation we are in now. They have blocked all attempts to increase the supply over the years and that is why prices are continuing to climb.
Post new comment
blogads
OMI All Over the Place!
Plain old boring
Our Other Sites
Posting Guidelines
You don't need to get an account, but anonymous posts are screened and user posts are not. Random comments go in Open Threads.
User login
Browse archives
OMI Gear
OMI gear at Cafepress!
Here's the latest sale:
Recent blog posts
- O: The Buyout Shoe Drops
- Random Open Thread, Fangirl Squeal Edition 8/20/08
- "We've" been listening to you!
- Layoffs at the Statesman-Journal (Updated)
- CBS Radio Layoffs
- Pioneer Studio Square UPDATE: THE SQUARE LIVE AT 7PM
- Double Bogey Yin Yang
- KATU: New weekend weather guy?
- Weekend Open Thread, Limited Internet Edition 8/8/08-8/10/08
- Channel 2,6,8, and 12
Recent comments
- at the WWeek article
10 hours 55 min ago - The Oregonian
12 hours 51 min ago - the husband's missing
13 hours 13 min ago - Let's just say she wouldn't
19 hours 11 min ago - Mixed bag
1 day 6 hours ago - Ignite Workflows
1 day 9 hours ago - The Oregonian
1 day 10 hours ago - Not a fan...
1 day 15 hours ago - back to buyout issues: quality and fairness
1 day 18 hours ago - Remember
1 day 18 hours ago
Who's online
There are currently 1 user and 116 guests online.
Online users
- LynnS
I'm a little curious about some of the campaign ads I've seen.
Why is Gordon Smith airing an ad advocating for change?
Are the folks in Mike Erickson's ads real people?
Are Steve Novick's ads working? Did he really say all those things Merkley said he said?
I find it interesting the different directions the candidates for Secretary of State take for their ads. I didn't realize the SoS was in charge of so much.
I like Kroger's ads. Very straight forward. I still don't know who Greg MacPherson is, and his ad about Kroger "just" passing the Oregon Bar is stupid.