"The poll showed Arizona Sen. McCain, who has clinched the Republican presidential nomination, is benefiting from the lengthy campaign battle between Obama and Clinton, who are now battling to win Pennsylvania on April 22.

McCain leads 46 percent to 40 percent in a hypothetical matchup against Obama in the November presidential election, according to the poll."

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1824791220080319?feedType=RSS&f eedName=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true

How sad would it be if the Clinton fucked up this election for the democrats...

The people are seeing Obama for what he is, a totally unqualified candidate with close ties to extremists.

Nwokie>>The people are seeing Obama for what he is, a totally unqualified candidate with close ties to extremists.

Do you always make fucking stupid statements like that Nwokie?

Don't forget to count the other 40% that want Clinton and will add to Obama's 40% come November. Like any credible Democrat is going to vote for John McSame aka Bush's third term. Get real. McCain will be defeated via a landslide. The GOP has failed miserably with the two most important things in this election: Iraq and the economy.

The degree of dumbth posted in here by certain conservatives is astounding. Just when you think you've heard it all, another record breaking load of human poop is posted.

The people are seeing Obama for what he is, a totally unqualified candidate with close ties to extremists.

The racist rears his ugly head once again....

Thats no way to talk about Vitalogy, Trixter and Listenerpete.

Okay then I won't talk about you anymore...

Trixter, I thought mcSANE was your boy?? So you do want another Bush inn the while house?

Trixter is so damned confused, he will probably end up voting for Nader.

I'm voting for Nixon!

Racist? What is racist about saying the guy is totally unqualified? Not only in experience, but he is an extremist. Look at his advisors, not just now, when he was a boy one of his idols was a former member of the Weathermen underground.

Yhe demos are repeating the 72 election, they thought they could nominate anyone, and win easily, they nominated an extreme liberal and President Nixon destroyed him.

"I'm voting for Nixon!"

You could do far worse. Like Hillary.

Herb

However, it's not really all that defensible as that statement is largely supported by cherry picking some key elements of Obama's life experience.

That's a fallacy, making the thing not so defensible. What he says, and what he has done, does not align well with the statement generally speaking.

Continuing to make that statement, without bringing some additional support for it to the table, is just hammering on Obama.

So, that leaves us with:

-maybe you really believe it!

So that's ignorance really.

-maybe you have some personal problem with Obama.

Could be race, personality, etc...

-maybe you have an agenda that's not gonna get advanced with Obama as President.

That's just being a tool.

The point being such accusations are gonna come up with repeated statements, despite them having been nicely debunked.

"..maybe you have some personal problem with Obama...could be race..."

Accusing Nwokie or any conservative-leaning voter of anything like that is a complete red herring. Look instead at the issues. Particularly since Mr. Obama is often seen as the most liberal senator currently serving.

Indeed, without the white vote, Mr. Obama wouldn't be where he is today. If you want to go after republicans on race, save your breath. Look within your own party, as polls consistently show that Hispanic voters far prefer Mrs. Clinton.

Herb

What he's said and done? He said he never heard his preacher make racist statements, then he said he did. He said he only took 150,000 from the crooked slum lord, then he said he took 250,000.

I was not talking about Republicans in general.

Just talking about people willing to keep hammering home two incorrect statements about Obama.

One being "he's an extremist". That's not supportable at this time.

The other being, "he lied" about Wright. That one is also not supportable given:

1. Obama stated he never heard the statements in question while seated at the church.

2. In his speech, he stated he has heard other statements.

Wright does say some stuff at times. Obama is saying he never heard him say stuff that bad personally, and that he condemns those statements.

If a person continues to hammer home those incorrect things, it's willful ignorance, or simple ignorance (which can be forgiven), or they've an agenda to press.

It's really that simple.

Not about Republicans or anybody else easily identified by some coarse political differentiator. It's totally about those continuing to make unsupportable statements as if they are established fact.

Need an example?

"Saddam had WMD's and had the capacity to make more, so we were right to take him out."

It's the same crap! And it has the same implications.

If this bothers anybody, and I really hope it does, then either go do the work to better support the unsupportable, or suck it up and quit repeating false and inflammatory shit.

"One being "he's an extremist". That's not supportable at this time."

Given that he's the most liberal senator currently serving, you are incorrect. Given that key fact, he is axiomatically extreme.

That's the truth, Mr. Give Me The Facts.

Herb

Also, this is extremely MINOR LEAGUE crap.

Do we really need to go through Clinton and McCain at this level?

I totally assure you, it's going to be very ugly by comparison.

That is why continuing to go here is inflammatory. I know you've got an agenda to push Herb, is that why you support the unsupportable right now? You've totally said that nothing else matters but terror and the pro-life agenda.

See how that works?

And for the record, I don't think it's racist. I think it's willful ignorance. I posted why I did to explain how people could easily arrive at racist.

That simple ambiguity also contributes to the statements being inflammatory.

It's all crap. And I really don't like crap.

Ok...

Being the most liberal does not make one extreme.

To get there, we've got to sort out just where the political dialog currently is and then work through where moderate falls in there.

You will find extremes in Berkley. That's not Obama.

And, more or less by definition, an extreme would not be hammering a "we have got to work together" message. It contradicts being extreme and makes no sense at all.

Can we go the other way then and paint McCain as an extreme neo-conservative?

Wanna go there and then sort out how well that plays with Americans in general?

It's a totally safe bet that we will see Obama aligned far better with a majority of Americans on a majority of their issues, than McCain is.

So, where he's at liberally, just isn't bad unless you've an axe to grind.

McCain is going to continue our war efforts. Says it could go 100 years. Now, that's bad and a clear majority know it. Put that against, "we have got to work together" and "we need to get our troops out of Iraq" and it's an easy sell for Obama.

Cake, in fact.

The average person, "wanting a change" and "needing things to get better" is going to take a look at that and easily say, "Obama is better for me", even if there is some disagreement on specific things.

Really, the only people who care about a statement of "extreme liberalism" are those locked into the current GOP because they have "nothing else matters" issues to deal with.

To a majority of people, "nothing else matters" isn't very viable. Their jobs matter, their health matters, their kids matter, their families matter, etc...

"Being the most liberal does not make one extreme."

Man, you're turning into a pretzel on this one.

Look at any bell graph.

Mr. Obama's votes place him on the extreme left.

That's the fact, Mr. Give Me The Facts.

Herb

Read the above post.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gGBH8j

That's what Joe and Jane American are thinking about Herb. That's what I am thinking about.

I could care less about the labels. I care about some solid change that's gonna improve things.

When our house is in order, then we have the luxury of debating more fully on other matters.

Most everybody I know is right there too. Everybody has their issues and opinions and desires on them. Also, most everybody, has a family to feed too.

I'm gonna get the family fed, long before I worry about how conservative or liberal somebody is.

Your votes place you on the extreme right. So what's your point?

"Your votes place you on the extreme right."

The simple fact is that I admit it and don't spin.

Herb

Yeah ok. Props for that one.

My point is that I do not believe the scope of political discussion is balanced right now. I think it's moved right.

I also think it does not matter so much, which is why I posted the additional posts I did.

Could care less about that discussion, and that really should have been my greater point overall.

You can try to paint Sen McCain as an extreme neo-conservative, but it won't fly with most Americans. However Obama has already proven to most Americans that he is an extreme left wing liberal.

Go and read the speech.

The label does not matter. It's a moot point.

What McCain is going to do totally matters, and that's all the information people need.

The label is gravy on top of that.

"Go and read the speech."

No.

Go ahead and read his votes.

Herb

Read my lips: "It's the war, stupid."

People will vote against the war, which McCain supports Shrub-like.

That is the only reason Obama will become president.

"The simple fact is that I admit it and don't spin."

"Simple" being the operative word here.

(And you most certainly do "spin", Mr.-Cherry-Picker-of-Sources.)

"The simple fact is that I admit it and don't spin."

So you gleefully admit to being an extremist whilst criticizing others for being an extremist. You can't make this stuff up!

"Go ahead and read his votes."

We will, and on November 5, we'll smile and raise a Stella and a finger in your general direction.

Its not the speeches, its Obama's actions over the last 10 years. Its the sleezy money transactions, its the company he's kept, its saying one thing and acting totally different.

Nwokie, are you voting for McCain in the general election?

"Its the sleezy money transactions, its the company he's kept, its saying one thing and acting totally different."

Actually, you just described McCain. Remember the Keating controversy, and McCain has changed from moderate conservative to neocon just to gain votes.

The reason McCain is moving ahead is that people are beginning to see what a mess the Democrats are in handling anything.

Go ahead and read his votes.

Absolutely! He's got a great record. No worries there.

Remember, what he says and what he does matters.

The only reason McCain is moving ahead is the sucker punches being delivered right now.

Clinton is really at the root of that. When she comes to Jesus on her status as nominee, that will largely stop, leaving quite a bit more attention for McCain.

Won't look good from that point on.

"The reason McCain is moving ahead is that people are beginning to see what a mess the Democrats are in handling anything."

Once we have a two person presidential run the mess that McCain is already attached too will be exploited. It will be game on.

Where you see the dem's fighting it out, I see our political system working to really hammer toward the top contender. It ain't pretty at times, less we forget how GW hammered McCain a few years ago.

Ain't politics fun!

The Democrats can't even run the primary process, something they have decades of experience with. How would they do running our health care?

*strike*

Wanna try again?

Missing, what does that mean. I'm slow.

So you're putting the same weight of running a political campaign with running the health care system.

Sorry you lost me on that one Deane. Two completely different kinds of organizations that require different management styles.

Would you coach a baseball team using football techniques?

Thanks Chris.

I worked for a fellow once who used to say to me about the management of radio stations we owned in various cities "when one things wrong, everythings wrong."

It always seemed to turn out to be true.

But a well run campaign doesn't guarantee success as a President either. Right? So really, they have nothing to do with one another. I know that Republicans LOVE to use stuff like this. It's old and tired.

"The people are seeing Obama for what he is, a totally unqualified candidate with close ties to extremists."

Untrue, Obama is not close to Shrub and the gang.

Nwokie:You can try to paint Sen McCain as an extreme neo-conservative, but it won't fly with most Americans.

Maybe not now, but the campaign has not yet begun. But facts are facts and it was John McCain, Joe Lieberman and Paul Wolfowitz who went to Europe to seek out alies before the Iraq war began.
I also think the following video is very telling. ;-)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZCISY40qns

And we shouldn't have sought out allies?

campaigns tend to be visual affairs, so can you imagine pictures of McCain graduateing from Annapolis, Serving in Vietnam, being released from POW status, commanding a Navy Fighter squadron, serving in the Senate, with a list of legislation he initiated that became law.

against pictures of Obama smoking pot and snorting cocaine in his youth, serving in the State House , where he accepted large payments from a slum lord, serving in the Senate, where he has no legislation that he initiated become law.

Pictures of McCain with his father and grandfather, both navy 4 Star admirals, and war heros.

I'm sure Obama has some nice family photos.

McCain did not start out as an extreme neo-conservative, but as long has he keeps his head up Bush's ass, that is what he will be.

Mr. McCain is now ahead by double digits.

RIP, lefties.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presiden tial_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

That speech on race the other day is going to have a longer-lasting impact than anything else that's happened in this campaign. It was a milestone, and people are going to be reading it decades into the future. As Jon Stewart said, Obama talked to us like grownups.

Herb, he is only ahead because the racism news buried the war news. Plus, I thought you neo-cons did not believe in polls.

The media will sell this as a horse race up to the election. $$$$$$$

Nwokie: You seem perfectly willing to dismiss Bush's rowdy past, but hold Obama to every step and misstep throughout his life. Can we start talking about Bush's drunken past now as proof he is unfit to lead our nation?

Herb: Regarding your parroting of the "Obama the #1 Liberal" meme, here's an analysis to consider from the Washington Monthly...


Taking a closer look at this year's results, Obama and Joe Biden were both considered more liberal than Russ Feingold and Bernie Sanders. This, alone, should make one wonder about the reliability of the rankings.

Better yet, National Journal's press release on the rankings noted the criteria was based on 99 key roll-call votes last year: "Obama voted the liberal position on 65 of the 66 votes in which he participated, while Clinton voted the liberal position on 77 of 82 votes." So, Clinton voted for the liberal position 77 times, Obama voted for it 65 times, which makes Obama the chamber's single most liberal member. Got it.

What's more, Obama was the 16th most liberal senator in 2005, and the 10th most liberal in 2006, before racing to the front of the pack in 2007. National Journal suggests this has something to do with Obama moving to the left to curry favor with Democratic primary voters.

But there's a more logical explanation: Obama missed a whole lot of votes in 2007 -- he's been on the campaign trail -- but was on the floor for many of the biggest, most consequential votes. In nearly every instance, he voted with the party. And with that, voila! The most liberal senator in America.

Except that's not much of a standard. The rankings use an amorphous meaning of the word "liberal," and the percentage doesn't take missed votes into account at all (which also helps explain why Kerry nabbed the top spot four years ago)

But none of that is going to matter for the rest of the campaign. The Republican National Committee has already issued a statement and, one assumes, every far-right outlet in the country will soon do the same.

That, of course, doesn't make it legit. As Brian Beutler noted, [T]his is philistinism masquerading as social science -- it's the U.S. News College Guide of Washington politics. Journalists ought to understand that. And those of conscience ought to ignore it, or lay it bare, but certainly not feed into it."

"campaigns tend to be visual affairs"

Yes, and I can't wait for the visual TV ads showing both John McCain and George W. Bush embracing each other.

Or how about this, while showing Bush endorsing McCain: "Would you vote for the person George W. Bush wants to be President?"

"Would you vote for the person George W. Bush wants to be President?"

Would you vote for the person Bin Laden wants to be Presdient? Or Al Qaeda?

Yes, and I can't wait for the visual TV ads....

I can. I can't stand political ads on TV. I suppose it wouldn't be so bad if they didn't run the same ad 50,000 times per night.

I was SO sick of Darlene Hooley in the last campaign (I know, I live in WA, but have deal with the OR ads since that's where the TV stations are.)

I'll probably wear out the mute button on my remote.

I wish there was an add on for your TV to automatically mute commercials (all commercials would be fine) and even blank the picture then return to normal when the program resumes. I'd pay $500 for a device like that!

Since Bin Laden's stated goal has been to bring the US down, I'm sure given the opportunity to vote, he would most certainly cast his vote for McCain. McCain is much more likely to continue the war in Iraq, which helps out al-qaida. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Bin Laden waited until George W Bush got elected to pull off 9/11. He knew ahead of time how he'd react and play right into the hands of Bin Laden. The US can't be beaten militarily. But, we can be defeated financially.

Wow, do you ever have a distorted view of reality.

We can say the same about you.

Bin Laden knows he can't defeat us militarily. What better way to defeat the US than to have us drawn into wars that will eventually bankrupt our government and create more enemies? What better way to guarantee our demise than to break the promise of "Backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government"?? Imagine the day we can no longer push our money around and get what we want. Those days are coming unless we change our policies.

While people like you may think that 9/11 was meant to just kill some people on a given day, people like me know there's a deeper meaning behind these actions, and one of those was the hope the US would react irrationality and suffer from self inflicted wounds. I'm sure in the eyes of Bin Laden and partly thanks to Bush and the Republicans, the effects of 9/11 have far, far, far, exceeded the expectations of Bin Laden. That's the part that pisses me off about Bush more than anything. He fucking blew it!!!!

" While people like you may think that 9/11 was meant to just kill some people on a given day, people like me know there's a deeper meaning behind these actions, and one of those was the hope the US would react irrationality and suffer from self inflicted wounds. "

I actually think that Bin Laden got lucky on that score. I don't even think he thought the buildings would collapse. Who knows? Maybe he did. But honestly, without the benefit of hindsight, is that just something that is common knowledge that would happen in that situation? I admit, it surprised me to see it.

I also wonder if Bin Laden really had any clue about what would would happen with regards to how we woudl react? I mean, come on - You really think he was able to analyze our military and economics to a degree that fortold where we are today? If it was so obvious, then it seems like it could have been an easy trap to avoid. I think your note about self-inflicted wounds is accurate. But I don't know - it's a surprise to me.

Maybe I just made a mistake. I accept that if true.

"I actually think that Bin Laden got lucky on that score. I don't even think he thought the buildings would collapse."

I'm thinking that's EXACTLY what happened with bin Laden -- luck. He later hit the jackpot when Bush eventually imagined a 9/11 connection to Saddam and quit looking for him, all the while emptying our treasury and killing more Americans than bin Laden could ever hope to do again.

Yep, Bush has created more chaos for Americans than bin Laden could have done on his own.

BS you say? Not so. This story is more plausible than anything the Bush admin has ever uttered in the last, oh, lets say, seven years.