A truely loathsome collection, though I must confess that my view of Huck improved as the weeks rolled on. I built up a tolerance.

Most sane people thought that Clinton was the no brainer choice to make, even Nader agreed. Not only not choosing her but not even considering her in any serious manner, despite saying, "Clinton would be on anybodies short list." Contemptuously snubbing anyone is folly, but someone who got about half the vote and whose other half was the last Democratic President is utterly crass. Unfortunately for the Democrats no brainer is probably not far off the mark.


DR

I think the Convention organisation perhaps shows an uncertainty in the Democratic Party. They are trying to make it about Obama and build his credibility. In my opinion that is the last thing they want to do.


I couldn't say what I will have for breakfast tomorrow. What fortune teller do you employ? I assume you mean events in the real world like Pakistan or the dollar rising?

Firstly they are both being negative and with regard debating Obama is crap at it. Good at delivering set speeches, poor at debate. He lost Saddleback and looked like a rank amateur in any against Clinton. He is not on top of many issues and in particular seems poor on History and Geography. He will want to keep to the general and non specific and McCain will want to get him into as many debates as he can.

[quote=hiding behind a poster] DR, even by your standards, that's an astonishing statement.[/quote:9xz66nzj]
If McCain picks Pawlenty or Romney will win the Great Lakes region; Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin(a state lost by bush by 6000 votes), that's his blowout.

Huckabee is part life coach. You just can't be angry at him. He reminds one of Ned Flanders.

You forgot a prefix in that sentence. The democrats are not trying to build Obama's credibility, they are trying to rebuild it. An impossible task in an electoral campaign. If all goes well at the Republican convention McCain will have a 5% lead after it.

The George Allen, Bill Frist, Jeb Bush types were in the same position as Romney, Thompson et al in that they were too Republican to win. But unlike Romney Thompson, Giuliani and all the other GOP canidates they are young enough to have political futures, the field this time doesn't, that's why they didn't run but the Romney types who are the wrong side of 60 had to. The republicas may have lucked out with McCain.

__________________
Liquidate labour, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate.

NDS and HBAP both making sence, maybe the site is in trouble. You are absolutely right. No Republican in his right mind would have ran in 2008 if their age did not preclude them from waiting till 2012. How could a Repub will with the war situation and the economy.

The best example of a horrible misjudgement like this was in the planning for 1992. Bush topped out with an approval rate of 91%. Mario Cuomo decided to wait and let a crowd of fools run and the rest was history. We will see if a mistake was made this time.

I dislike Obama but compared to McCain I would take Barrack any day. His policies will bring plenty of economic pain but McCain will get us all killed. That is genuine and not the usual hyperbole.

My conspiracy theory was that Clinton's moles were Obama's advisers and the evidence continues. One mistake after another.

The Obama fan's must be sweating.

__________________
Irish Liberty Forum

[youtube:3hv9lmaf]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMw0igOAVEo[/youtube:3hv9lmaf]

Hillary does her bit for Obama. If Obama can't win it after this his supportors can't blame Hillary (God bless her! )

__________________
FIANNA FAIL - THE PARTY BEFORE COUNTRY PARTY.
Our 2010 election motto: "Every emigrant is one less vote for the opposition - keep it up boyos"

Sadly for Obama, he won't be able to rely on an autocue at the debates. If you saw him in any of the Primary debates, you would have realised he is a lightweight. The New Hampshire debate was particularly striking in this regard and probably had a considerable role in turning a 10 point lead on Saturday into a defeat on Tuesday.

You're right about the money advantage. Back in July I was convinced the money would see Obama through but now people are growing tired of Obama-related stories flooding the media, so he would probably have to spend a lot of the money going negative. Of course that would undermine his message of "change", "hope", "sunshine", "lollipops" and "rainbows".

He has lots of money, but currently can't gain much of an advantage by spending it.

That was a very difficult speech to deliver, and she did it very well and with dignity. A very strong, stateswoman like performance which underscores the question, why oh why was she not considered for the VP position?

Already we have some Obama supporters saying she didn't do enough? She should have attacked McCain more, praised Obama more!*!?? She did say not to vote for McCain and another 4 years of the Republicans, and on various occasions that she supported Obama, praised Biden etc etc. Beyond me what they expect? Do these people actually want unity or are they genetically predisposed to some a death wish? It takes both sides to behave to unite a party, and Obama supporters constantly harping on about the Clintons is the equivalent of lighting a match in a room douched with petrol. In the end the only person that can really sell Obama is Obama himself.

The latest tracking polls show McCain going ahead as the Democrats start their convention. McCain is ahead by 2 on Gallup and tied on Rasmussen. It's normally supposed to go the other way! Today's trackers will be interesting but there has been no bounce as yet for Obama.

__________________
Seabhcan on EU Enlargement and the Lisbon Treaty: "There is no shortage of cheap labour - Turkey isn't needed."

I have to say it was a decent speech but I still find it hard to find her genuine.
She was not considered for the polling because of the fact that she is the person who has said that Obama is not ready to lead the country throughout the 1st half of the year.
It is not the person you want beside you.

The polls have not taken into account the convention yet and will not until early next week. The Dems choosing Biden does not seem to have worked so far.

I think the debates will be interesting - given the fact I think that neither are very good debaters in my opinion.
But I think its a bit cheap for the Republicans to be going after the inexpereince of Obama - when an 'inexperienced' Gov Bush beat the more 'experienced' Senator John McCain in 2000 - didn't care about experience then did they? Also their choice is something to be debated? - Couldn't find anyone of note so we will go with the loser from last time.
Come on the Dems - time for change !

[quote=Defeated Romanticist][quote="hiding behind a poster":2an0a5cl] DR, even by your standards, that's an astonishing statement.[/quote:2an0a5cl]
If McCain picks Pawlenty or Romney will win the Great Lakes region; Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin(a state lost by bush by 6000 votes), that's his blowout.[/quote:2an0a5cl]

DR, it has been shown over and over again that presidential elections don't work like that. It is simply a media myth repeated ad nausaum come each election. When you look through the stats you find election after election and election where the VP nominee does not even win their own state let alone a region. Even the supposed 'great example', LBJ with JFK, actually doesn't hold water. With LBJ on the ticket JFK's support went up in Texas by less than the national average, and the Republicans got 48%. In election after election after election, if the VP nominee's state was won, the evidence shows it was going to be win anyway. If it was lost it was going to be lost anyway.

VPs may largely be an irrelevance - John Nance Garner said that the VP "isn't worth a pitcher of warm piss" (it has later been cleaned up to say "spit" (how can spit be warm?) and others credited with it, but it was actually said by Garner, FDR's 1st VP). The only electoral benefit that comes from VPs is that it allows a second person to travel to other parts of the country on behalf of the candidate, so allowing twice the bang for the candidate's buck. But is it worthless in electoral college terms - that's why Obama picked someone from the electorally irrelevant Delaware. He isn't aiming to win a state or a region. He is aiming to win the sort of Catholic blue-collar workers that identify with Biden. The 'winning a state/region' is just an old wives' tale trotted out by journalists who know little more than what they read their colleagues writing and just rehash each other's myths. Politicians stopped believing in the 'VP winning a state/region' mallarkey decades ago when they found it to be demonstrably untrue.

__________________
(Guys, when I type in capitals it isn't shouting. I have technical problems which makes using italics difficult. Please don't take offence if you see capitals used!)