[Al_U_Card]

So, with foot firmly in mouth, the comment about retiring into guns and religion.....will it cost him Pennsylvania?

How about longer term. Does Hil-Billie have renewed hope? (Obama did say he was all about engendering hope....lol)

[mike777]

He was going to lose in Penn no matter what, it looks like, even if he ran a perfect race.

It is difficult to see how he can lose the nomination of the Democratic party, he is too far ahead in delegates. Hillary may be hoping he loses in November and she can run again in 4 years.

With some polls saying the most important issues are getting out of Iraq and fixing the economy it is difficult to see how the Democrat will not win big in November. I do not have the polls in front of me but it seems these issues, getting out of Iraq and fixing the economy, are around 75% or more against what McCain stands for or is running on. It looks like a huge landslide victory for the Democratic party across the board.

The Democratic party says the war is lost send home the troops now, stop our young men and women from getting killed in a lost war, and fix the economy now and let's talk with Iran.

The Republicans want to stay in Iraq for 100 years, keep fighting with no end in sight and are blamed for the economic mess, admit they do not know much about economic issues and to top it all off they sing about bombing Iran and then smile. It will be interesting to see how many American voters, if any vote for that Republican position.

[hrothgar]

Few quick notes:

1. "Bitter Gate" appears to an artifact of the media... None of the major polls in Pennsylvania show a statistically significant shift since Obama's comments on Friday. Nation wide, the polls show that Obama has increased his lead over Clinton to approximately 10 points. This is his widest lead ever. If anything, Clinton's attacks on Obama seem to be costing her support

2. Obama picked up a major endorsement today from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazzette. This is a critical endorsement in the Western part of the state.

3. A couple monthes back, Clinto had close to a 20 point lead over Obama in Pennsylvania. Obama appears to have closed to within 4-5 points. This is a remarkable turn arround.

4. I don't think that Clinton has a credible reason for staying in the race. Its mathematically impossible for her to win the primary. I really wish that she would show some class and bow out gracefully. Hopefully, if she fails to win Pennsylvania by double digets she'll get the point...

[kenberg]

"One hand on the Bible, the other hand on the gun". It's a nostalgic bit of Americana. Hey, Hillary, I'll drink to that. Let's have another brew and go hunt up some bear. Watch out for the sniper fire.

There is just nothing like American politics. Reality eclipsing satire.

[mike777]

"There is just nothing like American politics. Reality eclipsing satire."




http://www.pollingre...com/wh08gen.htm

Roughly 43% poll for the republican and about 46% for the Democrat and about 4% are undecided. This is counting only those that vote.

About 30-40% or so do not vote at all, maybe more in some elections.

So the reality is the vast majority are voting for a neverending war in Iraq and singing about bombing Iran and smile or they just cannot be bothered to vote against it or so it seems.....

My point being at some point the American public has to take full blame for this ongoing war or be bothered to vote for a change.

[irdoz]

In Australia, a country which does not have a large 'gun culture' and has tough gun control laws, one of the state governments went to an election with a platform that included tougher gun control. It became the main election issue, the state government was wiped out and members of the 'shooters party' were elected to the states' upper house. Research after the election showed that gun laws were one of those issues where close to 10% of people (those who oppose gun control) were prepared to change their vote regardless of other issues.

I have no idea how Obama's comments will play out in American politics, but being perceived to attack 'guns', judging by the impact it had here, could be very costly. I imagine McCain is celebrating and there is a high chance that guns will now feature hugely in an Obama vs McCain election.

[mike777]

irdoz, on Apr 16 2008, 03:54 PM, said:

In Australia, a country which does not have a large 'gun culture' and has tough gun control laws, one of the state governments went to an election with a platform that included tougher gun control. It became the main election issue, the state government was wiped out and members of the 'shooters party' were elected to the states' upper house. Research after the election showed that gun laws were one of those issues where close to 10% of people (those who oppose gun control) were prepared to change their vote regardless of other issues.

I have no idea how Obama's comments will play out in American politics, but being perceived to attack 'guns', judging by the impact it had here, could be very costly. I imagine McCain is celebrating and there is a high chance that guns will now feature hugely in an Obama vs McCain election.

"Reality eclipsing satire."




It is interesting to watch American police tv shows compared to British ones.
In British shows the cops yell stop, the bad guy stops and gives himself up.
In American tv the cops yell stop and the bad guys pulls out a machine gun, kills the cop, blows up the cop car, and wounds another ten cops. The bad guy's buddies go after the judge and his family......and the witnesses.

Best case the bad guy goes to jail but continues to send out messages and runs his crime family from jail.

[PassedOut]

mike777, on Apr 16 2008, 03:01 PM, said:

The Democratic party says the war is lost send home the troops now, stop our young men and women from getting killed in a lost war, and fix the economy now and let's talk with Iran.

The Republicans want to stay in Iraq for 100 years, keep fighting with no end in sight and are blamed for the economic mess, admit they do not know much about economic issues and to top it all off they sing about bombing Iran and then smile. It will be interesting to see how many American voters, if any vote for that Republican position.

Reminds me of a conversation I had with a man from Japan after the 2004 elections. He asked me to explain how Bush could get any votes at all after his first four years in office.

He didn't seem to buy my explanation, and seemed sure that the election results were fishy (and that I was naive about it).

[Winstonm]

It doesn't matter - Diebold already announced McCain as the winner of next year's bogus presidential election.

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/dieb...identally_leaks

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on Apr 16 2008, 05:42 PM, said:

It doesn't matter - Diebold already announced McCain as the winner of next year's bogus presidential election.

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/dieb...identally_leaks

Yes, but I have heard that the leak is really a dirty trick by the McCain campaign with the objective of drying up funding for the Democrats. The real name of the winner is secured in a vault deep in corporate headquarters. The smart money says that they have chosen Al Gore to win by a massive write-in vote.

[Al_U_Card]

kenberg, on Apr 16 2008, 07:19 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Apr 16 2008, 05:42 PM, said:

It doesn't matter - Diebold already announced McCain as the winner of next year's bogus presidential election.

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/dieb...identally_leaks

Yes, but I have heard that the leak is really a dirty trick by the McCain campaign with the objective of drying up funding for the Democrats. The real name of the winner is secured in a vault deep in corporate headquarters. The smart money says that they have chosen Al Gore to win by a massive write-in vote.

With Ralph Nader as his running (no car, of course) mate?

[kenberg]

I watched part of the debates last night. Very interesting. I learned that "middle class" now means an annual income of less than 250K. Ah yes, it was just yesterday I was bemoaning the rising price of caviar. The pain the pain, I just can't go on.

[CSGibson]

mike777, on Apr 16 2008, 12:01 PM, said:

The Republicans want to stay in Iraq for 100 years...

I think that the position that we should stay in Iraq (and I will resist calling it a Republican decision, because I believe that to be incorrect, given that there was bi-party support for starting the war), is that we went in and destabilized that region almost unilaterally, and that it would be irresponsible to leave before we've given the region some hope of stability.

It's hard (saying this as someone who has family serving in the USMC), but that doesn't mean that staying isn't the right thing to do.

[jdonn]

CSGibson, on Apr 20 2008, 07:27 PM, said:

we went in and destabilized that region almost unilaterally, and that it would be irresponsible to leave before we've given the region some hope of stability.

Oy not this argument again. I'm getting deja vu, and not the good kind.

[CSGibson]

jdonn, on Apr 20 2008, 04:32 PM, said:

CSGibson, on Apr 20 2008, 07:27 PM, said:

we went in and destabilized that region almost unilaterally, and that it would be irresponsible to leave before we've given the region some hope of stability.

Oy not this argument again. I'm getting deja vu, and not the good kind.

If it makes you feel better, I was yelling at the screen when they voted to go into Iraq in the first place (and not the good kind of yelling), and just as angry when Bush won the White House again despite 1) having his biggest foreign policy decision be completely wrong (WMD hunt), and 2) being a divider instead of a uniter on the domestic front, despite his own claims to the contrary.

[mike777]

jdonn, on Apr 20 2008, 07:32 PM, said:

CSGibson, on Apr 20 2008, 07:27 PM, said:

we went in and destabilized that region almost unilaterally, and that it would be irresponsible to leave before we've given the region some hope of stability.

Oy not this argument again. I'm getting deja vu, and not the good kind.

We marched in our troops in a matter of days or weeks, why does it take 20 months after jan 2009 to get them all out? I assume all includes the Navy offshore and the navy and airforce overhead. I swear the Democrats are starting to sound more and more like Bush everyday. Next they will be cutting taxes, loving guns, talking about God and staying in Iraq for 48 months.

They say the war is lost and stability a pipe dream so what takes 20 months or more? We marched them in we can march them out. Just more grief for service families.

[Al_U_Card]

The Bush government is worse than corrupt. It is bankrupt.

Not monetarily. Morally.

McCain is onboard. Clinton is convertible. Obama is removeable.

When will the next "terra" attack occur? Depends on the need. If needed, it will fall accurately and inevitably where it will serve their purposes most.

Your constitution is emasculated. Your bill of rights gutted. Your society impoverished.

The last american revolution, if it was indeed the last, will have been in vain.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Apr 21 2008, 04:28 AM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 20 2008, 07:32 PM, said:

CSGibson, on Apr 20 2008, 07:27 PM, said:

we went in and destabilized that region almost unilaterally, and that it would be irresponsible to leave before we've given the region some hope of stability.

Oy not this argument again. I'm getting deja vu, and not the good kind.

We marched in our troops in a matter of days or weeks, why does it take 20 months after jan 2009 to get them all out? I assume all includes the Navy offshore and the navy and airforce overhead. I swear the Democrats are starting to sound more and more like Bush everyday. Next they will be cutting taxes, loving guns, talking about God and staying in Iraq for 48 months.

They say the war is lost and stability a pipe dream so what takes 20 months or more? We marched them in we can march them out. Just more grief for service families.

As usual Mike, you have no clue what you're talking about...

It's true that the original invasion of Iraq went by fairly quickly: The formal date for the invasion is listed as March 9th. Baghdad fell on April 9th. However, this timeline ignores all the pre-positioning of troops and equipment. The US military spent years building up troops and munitions in and around the Persian Gulf preparing for the invasion. Most of the build up happened after 9-11, however, some of it took place well before then.

I don't know if you're completely blinded by some delusional agenda or if you are genuinely this ignorant. Either way your posts really get old after a while.

[Al_U_Card]

Did you note how the Pa. primary has given renewed "hope" to Hil-Billie and their campaign?

Big win? 52 delegates for them, 46 to Barack.......guess we know how the super-delegates are going to vote.....damn those PTB.

[P_Marlowe]

mike777, on Apr 20 2008, 08:28 PM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 20 2008, 07:32 PM, said:

CSGibson, on Apr 20 2008, 07:27 PM, said:

we went in and destabilized that region almost unilaterally, and that it would be irresponsible to leave before we've given the region some hope of stability.

Oy not this argument again. I'm getting deja vu, and not the good kind.

We marched in our troops in a matter of days or weeks, why does it take 20 months after jan 2009 to get them all out? I assume all includes the Navy offshore and the navy and airforce overhead. I swear the Democrats are starting to sound more and more like Bush everyday. Next they will be cutting taxes, loving guns, talking about God and staying in Iraq for 48 months.

They say the war is lost and stability a pipe dream so what takes 20 months or more? We marched them in we can march them out. Just more grief for service families.

Besides hrothgar comments:

One simple example: It is a whole lot easier to mine
a certain area, than to remove mines from a the same
area.

Of course you could leave the mine fields, which were
created to protect the area the troops are living to an
non US military organisation, everyone would love this.

With kind regards
Marlowe