2008 Primaries Thread

this is o/t but we don't have a "rolling congressional youtube roflz thread"

sheldon whitehouse vs epa administrator

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-plXrnjN03U

sheldon whitehouse vs epa administrator

We can do better. No-Holds-Barred Tag-Team Match: Edwards/Cruise v. Romney/Timothy Dalton.

In other news: Al Gore sez it's ok for me to get married.

Bill was no friend to the black man.

He relished this bond and often acknowledged his honorary blackness. It is important to remember that the description of Clinton as black was prompted by his experience of personal, public humiliation at the hands of his political foes. It is not a claim about his racial heritage, but instead a reaction to his experience with and use of cultural markers that often stand for the denigrated elements of black life in America.

We knew this, but to read it so baldly -- to recall the nonsense said by intelligent people like Toni Morrison -- galls. He's claiming martyrdom!

ouch

A group that lobbies for needle exchanges, for allowing more immigrants with HIV/AIDS to legally enter the country, and for condom distribution in prisons received a $303,000 federal earmark pushed by Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.).

That was one of 261 earmarks Clinton personally helped usher through Congress. That's more earmarks than any other member of Congress seeking the presidency, according to an analysis by the watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW).

...

For the candidates still in the primary race, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) had 46 earmarks ... and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) had no earmarks, according to the CAGW. McCain has campaigned on having no earmarks during his time in Congress, and he has pledged to eliminate them if elected president.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200801/POL20080124e.html

well, if citizens against government waste says so!

just a preview of coming attractions

i dont get what gabbneb's point is

he likes Rear Window?

gold star

Obama does the top ten - http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/01/vice_president.html

HAGAR, SAMMY R MR.
NOVATO, CA 94948
F.W.O. INC./ENTERTAINER George W Bush (R)
President
BUSH-CHENEY '04 (PRIMARY) INC Lost $2,000
primary 07/11/03
HAGAR, SAMMY R.
NOVATO, CA 94948
F.W.O. INC./ENTERTAINER Dana Rohrabacher (R)
House (CA District: 46)
COMMITTEE TO RE-ELECT CONGRESSMAN DANA ROHRABACHER Won $1,000
primary 02/08/02
HAGAR, SAMMY
MILL VALLEY, CA 94941
VAN HALEN GROUP Dana Rohrabacher (R)
House (CA District: 46)
COMMITTEE TO RE-ELECT CONGRESSMAN DANA ROHRABACHER Won $1,000
primary 12/23/93
HAGAR, SAMMY
MILL VALLEY, CA 94941
VAN HALEN GROUP Dana Rohrabacher (R)
House (CA District: 46)
COMMITTEE TO RE-ELECT CONGRESSMAN DANA ROHRABACHER Won $1,000
primary 11/25/91
HAGAR, SAMMY
MILL VALLEY, CA 94941
VAN HALEN GROUP Dana Rohrabacher (R)
House (CA District: 46)
COMMITTEE TO RE-ELECT CONGRESSMAN DANA ROHRABACHER Won $500
general 11/25/91
HAGAR, SAMMY
MILL VALLEY, CA 94941
VAN HALEN GROUP Dana Rohrabacher (R)
House (CA District: 46)
COMMITTEE TO RE-ELECT CONGRESSMAN DANA ROHRABACHER Won $1,000
primary 03/11/88

NELSON, PRINCE ROGERS
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067 BOSCHWITZ, RUDY (R)
Senate - MN
PEOPLE FOR BOSCHWITZ 1990 - $-1,000
primary 06/25/90
NELSON, PRINCE ROGERS
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067
BRESLAUER, JACOBSON ET AL BOSCHWITZ, RUDY (R)
Senate - MN
PEOPLE FOR BOSCHWITZ 1990 Lost $1,000
primary 02/20/90
NELSON, PRINCE ROGERS
LOS ANGELES, CA 90067
BRESLAUER, JACOBSON ET AL BOSCHWITZ, RUDY (R)
Senate - MN
PEOPLE FOR BOSCHWITZ 1990 Lost $1,000
primary 02/20/90

...

:(

Ted Nugent (bio)
rock star, hunter

Election Picks
1 win, 1 loss
$500 Republican
$1,000 Democrat
total: $1,500
Contributor Candidate or PAC Election
Result* Amount Date FEC
Filing
NUGENT, THEODORE
CONCORD, MI 49237
SINGER BARCIA, JAMES A (D)
House (MI District: 05)
BARCIA FOR CONGRESS Won $1,000
primary 07/25/92
NUGENT, THEODORE "TED"
CONCORD, MI 49237
SELF/DAMN YANKEES WORLD WIDE WILSON, THOMAS DOOLEY (R)
House (MI District: 07)
COMMITTEE TO ELECT THOMAS DOOLEY WILSON Lost $500
primary 06/17/92

!!!!

then again, maybe nuge's contribution to this barcia fellow isn't so surprising:

Political career

Barcia was a member of the Michigan State House of Representatives, from 1977 to 1983. He left the House after being elected to the Michigan Senate, where he served until he resigned in 1993 to enter the United States House of Representatives.
Barcia's Congressional District from 1993 to 2002
Barcia's Congressional District from 1993 to 2002

Barcia was elected as a Democrat from Michigan's 5th congressional district to the 103rd Congress and to the four succeeding Congresses, serving from January 3, 1993 to January 3, 2003. He was a moderate Democrat who opposed abortion and gun control. He had a lifetime rating of 54 from the American Conservative Union--the highest of any Democrat from Michigan at the time.

After the United States 2000 Census, Barcia's district was dismantled by the Republican-controlled state legislature. Most of his district's territory was shifted to the 10th District, but his home in Bay City was merged with the neighboring 9th District of fellow Democrat Dale Kildee. The new district retained Barcia's district number (the 5th), but was geographically more Kildee's district. Under the circumstances, Barcia opted to run for his old seat in the State Senate and won.

On April 23, 2004, he was indicted on federal campaign finance law violations relating to the failed 2002 congressional bid of then-Macomb County Prosecutor Carl Marlinga. The charges against Barcia were dropped in July of 2005.

On October 10, 2002, Jim Barcia was among the 81 House Democrats who voted in favor of authorizing the invasion of Iraq.

Wait, wait, wait, wait: Ted Nugent donated to Democrats?

Haha Ron Paul just blamed Iraq on the Clinton administration.

I just saw a trustapaulian on the bus home from work. He didn't look like he had friends.

NYT endorses Hillary in primary - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/opinion/25fri1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin - arguing she's better prepared. I didn't realize that needed to be established. There is little discussion on the other hand of who's likelier to win.

ok just discovered superdelegates this shit be fucked up y'all wtf is up with superdelegates is this a democracy or not????

Barack Obama, the incandescent if still undefined senator from Illinois. .. we need more specifics to go with his amorphous promise of a new governing majority, a clearer sense of how he would govern.

See, now, I'm not the only one who thinks this..

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/24/clinton_pulls_negative_sc_ad.html

now she's copying huckabee. which candidate has she not tried on for size?

the choice was Kristol clear

which candidate has she not tried on for size?

RON PAUL.

just got back from trivia night and there was a question on how many delagates the front-runners have--but not counting pledged superdelegates. I got it wrong.

I do kinda like that the last few presidential elections have activated parts of the electoral process that everyone thought was outdated, like the electoral college and party conventions.

but I'm a nerd.

activated underscored parts of the electoral process that everyone thought was are outdated, like the electoral college and party conventions.

RON PAUL

he leapt immediately to mind, and then was crossed off just as quickly. you don't need to be reminded who the black candidate is again, do you?

Putting the ad on & yanking after team Obama came out with a really harsh response? Hey, not a bad idea. I'm sure Huck didn't invent it.

xpost If there's anything you shoulda revised there, it's "outdated."

NYT endorses HRC and McCain.

i wonder what happens if Hillary comes in 3rd in SC

It means I can vote for Edwards on Feb 5.

Obama's nonspecifics still slightly preferable to HRC's track record.

Morbs, how can you still prefer Edwards when he's the Dem's Mitt Romney?

blah!

blah blah blah!

YES!

NO WAY!

blah!

blah blah blah!

-- Tracer Hand, Friday, January 25, 2008 8:43 AM (0 seconds ago) Bookmark Link

Translation: yahhh trick yahhh!!!

Alfred, bcz Hil is the Dems' McCain?

Gary Younge on Obama and bipartisan pipedreams:

As a means to an end, bipartisanship makes sense. But as an end in itself, it is a hollow notion unless you define who you want to join forces with and why.

...the partisanship in Washington that has disillusioned people is in fact "partysanship"--the support not of one idea or program over another but of one party over another. Democrats backed the war and have refused to stop its funding, impeach Bush or protect civil liberties because they believe that to do otherwise would be bad for the party, regardless of the country's interests.

While the Democratic Party's interests may at times coincide with that of the American people, they are clearly not synonymous. The party's raison d'être is to win elections, not to change America. Depending on the time, place and candidate, it may well stand for office but little else. The right understands these limits of electoral politics only too well. Its victories have ended in Washington, but they didn't start there and were not sustained there. The terrible truth about the past seven years is not that the country has been divided but that the wrong side has been winning. The right has fought for its agenda and has never been in doubt about who its enemy is.

It's high time the left did the same (by) recognizing that divisions exist and that to resolve them we have to take sides and fight for our beliefs. Unity is not forged by fiat but by struggle.

Edwards is great in a lot of ways. I wish the other candidates were tackling the issues he is. There are aspects to his plan that I like as well. I am also totally accepting of the fact that his positions have shifted and strengthened, but ultimately, this guy is comes off as a dilettante.

I can't support anyone in the primaries who not only voted for the Iraq resolution, but who actively made the administration's case for the Iraqi threat in public. Edwards was on the same intelligence committee as Durbin!

I'll actively support whoever wins the nomination, but I have good reason not to trust Edwards and Clinton. I have no reason to expect Obama to leave us high and dry. That's something, at least. (and no, that is not the only reason I support Obama)

"The Democratic Party: We Have Different Interests Than the American People" might not be the best slogan ever.

the democrats' constant "little dog" inferiority complex is the real problem and i think it goes beyond strategy to something deeply psychological. in a fascist system, power is the only arbiter of validity, so if you're the party of the powerless -- in broad strokes -- you need to call on something pretty profound to not end up with a bad case of stockholme syndrome

Well, for 6 very important years there the dems were the minority in every single branch of government, and completely shut out from any decision-making, so there's a certain validity to it in context. (The fact that the GOP acting unilaterally led in no small part to its downfall could be brought up more.) Saying shit like "While the Democratic Party's interests may at times coincide with that of the American people, they are clearly not synonymous" is just getting behind the very successful GOP strategy of convincing Dems that the perceived majority of public opinion is virulently against them on certain issues, and that if they don't vote a certain way they'd be drawn and quartered. This wasn't true, and again, proceeding on assumptions like this screwed the GOP in a major, major way. It really needs to be re-emphasized the degree to which the GOP's seemingly successful tactics got it kicked out of Congress and, soon, the White House.

(And the Dems aren't the party of the powerless--they're supposed to be the party of the people, which in a democratic system means you're actually the party with power. To say nothing of their historical support of such powerful institutions as unions, the middle class, and government itself.)

Obama's couching bipartisanship in inclusive terms, but in practical political terms bipartisanship means there's someone to share the blame with. That's why the war has ultimately not been as bad for the GOP as it really should be, given public opinion.

La Noonan:

There are many serious and thoughtful liberals and Democrats who support Mr. Obama and John Edwards, and who are seeing Mr. Clinton in a new way and saying so. Here is William Greider in The Nation, the venerable left-liberal magazine. The Clintons are "high minded" on the surface but "smarmily duplicitous underneath, meanwhile jabbing hard at the groin area. They are a slippery pair and come as a package. The nation is at fair risk of getting them back in the White House for four years."

That, again, is from one of the premier liberal journals in the United States. It is exactly what conservatives have been saying for a decade. This may mark a certain coming together of the thoughtful on both sides. The Clintons, uniters at last.

Mr. Obama takes the pummeling and preaches the high road. It's all windup with him, like a great pitcher more comfortable preparing to throw than throwing. Something in him resists aggression. He tends to be indirect in his language, feinting, only suggestive. I used to think he was being careful not to tear the party apart, and endanger his own future.

But the Clintons are tearing the party apart. It will not be the same after this. It will not be the same after its most famous leader, and probable ultimate victor, treated a proud and accomplished black man who is a U.S. senator as if he were nothing, a mere impediment to their plans. And to do it in a way that signals, to his supporters, "How dare you have the temerity, the ingratitude, after all we've done for you?"

Those final Noonan paragraphs are a bit much, no? I mean, candidates have negative campaigned against each other during primaries for decades. Why will this particular instance "tear the party apart," and even if that's true, why should Obama respond in kind? Wouldn't that make the tear even more damaging and irreversible?

The far left (including its mouthpiece The Nation) has always disliked the Clintons - big surprise there. Noonan's overblown rhetoric is ridiculous. Oh those nasty Clintons! Who will think of the children?!