Not in a 30 second ad...

Ex-freaking-actly

Have a freaking IRL attention span

tell that to the voters.
I think if any of the voting public actually paid attention to Blot in the country - NONE of these people would even have a chance at the nomination.

He can cover his health care proposal in a 30 second ad though, among other issues in their own ads too. I'm not asking for a detailed explanation, I'm asking for a glimpse at what he plans to do other than make 'changes'.

So he can't say "I will work do this, to get this, and this, to lower this" or whatever in 30 seconds?

I suppose that will always be the probl

Hey look, a plane

Agree!

I'd be happy with that.

Clinton would undermine Obama whenever she had the chance.

I wonder if either of them could supress their ego long enough to step into the VICE- position...

QUOTED FOR TRUTH

Even if you assume the absolute worst about her, that doesn't make sense as a strategy. If she were VP, she would have to campaign for president after that on her administration's record in office. It's not in her interests to torpedo the most significant part of her political résumé.

P.S. Dean laying down the law on Florida/Michigan Democratic Parties:

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archiv...rida_and_mi.php

P.P.S. my favorite comment is #4 down

I'd vote for an Obama-Clinton ticket. Clinton-Obama... probably not. And definitely not for McCain, although he seems like a decent guy. I made my mind up a long time ago that I was not going to vote any person into public office who supported the war. As far as I'm concerned none of them have shown the judgment required to do what's best for this country, and that's really what it's about.

I'm still amazed at the level of Hillary Hate out there. I just don't get why she's so bad.

Lucky for Democrats Mccain is pretty unpopular among the Republicans too.

But yet he'll get 99.99% support from the Republican party now which is not lucky for the Democrats.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/...a-to-ken-starr/

My issue is the way she sells herself as "experienced" when she really means "old". Seven years of elected office, that's what she's got.

Of course, she would have been able to run as an "agent of change" if not for Obama, and her husband, and her existing near-50% unfavorable rating. Vetted INDEED

It's weird how McCain has such a ridiculous amount of experience compared to both Dem candidates.

That'll happen when you're the oldest potential president ever.

It's really a no lose situation for most left leaning moderates no matter who wins.

No wai

*is a progressive*

"moderate" just means you can't make up your mind IMO

Progressive is just an attempt to come up with a different word than "moderate" IMO

You make Teddy Roosevelt sad want to kick your ass.

I'm sure you meant to say liberal...

words --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TedKennedy4Life

Aren't progressives the guys that deliver the alt-weeklys to the bookstores in the shopping centers said guys denounce as urban sprawl?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080306/pl_af...tsvotediplomacy

Talk about being a hypocrite.

So if those two go around making assurances and still lose does that make them asses (not like their party symbol).

...Or you have opinions that aren't 100% democrat/republican compatible, or you do not agree with the more liberal/conservative sections of your party, or a million other things.

Wyoming caucus today... film at 11

Oh, so the US is allowed to intervene in the elections of other countries but we're not allowed to do the same?

Eh, NAFTA needs to be overhauled anyway. And if the US has to be the one to start the ball rolling on the whole thing, so be it.

I'm happy to see McCain get the GOP nod. I disagree with him over Iraq, but the fact remains that he's a breath of fresh air compared to the neoCons who've been running the party lately.

The Democrats, well honestly, I'm uninspired. Clinton, well here's the thing. I doubt she can win. Americans fought a revolution against monarchy, and history shows they tend to reject anything resembling it. The States already had a Clinton presidency, and is just now finishing up the second Bush presidency in twenty years.
The last three presidencies have been Bush-Clinton-Bush. I doubt Americans are going to give the nod to a Clinton. It's just not the USA's style.
It's the same reason that I doubt Jeb Bush will ever be president.
Besides, Clinton seems like the "same old, same old" when it comes to the Dems. She's basically a more likable version of John Karry (who almost beat W, IIRC). Nothing new, SSDC.

Obama, well the change thing is a great message, and I've partially been rooting for him since he won in Iowa (and proved he had a shot), but for whatever reason he isn't inspiring me.
I'd consider myself left-of-centre, and I would call myself a L/liberal, but Obama just seems "fake" to me. Maybe I'm just jaded, but the whole "Progress/Change" message seems like political pandering. I hope I'm wrong though.

Oh, and that article makes a mistake. It claims that the New Democratic Party is the official opposition to Harper's Tories in Parliament. In fact they're the smallest party in Parliament. The Liberals are the official opposition with 94 seats. Next up we have the Bloc Québécois with 49 seats, and the NDP finally come up with 30. So the NDP are far from the opposition. Even the Sepratists have more seats then they do.[/off topic overview of the current political situation in Canada]

My point was that Clinton is doing the same thing she is/was slamming Obama for. Thus she is a hypocrite.

Yeah, I got that, and it's a good point to. It further fuels my belief that Obama's "change" message, while hopeful, may be a whole lot of hot air at the end of the day. But who knows? If anything I think he has a better chance at beating McCain then Clinton does.

Everything else after my NAFTA comment in my post consisted of my thoughts on the situation so far, nothing in relation to your post. Sorry for the mix-up.

My new candidate of choice.

Well, either way, there will be change in this country. Whether it's the change that Obama is talking about is another matter. The big change will be that we will not have Bush around anymore, which, hopefully, will be good change in the long run.

Obama has a lot to prove if elected President. That is a fact.

Clinton's "3 AM" ad girl supports Obama

That's dedication.


"It's good to know there's a president who will pick up the phone and buy images of some random girl." Oh, goodness.

You say that as if that's not the case with EVERY new president.

The difference is, Obama's promising a break from the norm that both parties seem all to ready to follow.
When the Democrats won Congress in 2006 they were elected with the hope they would bring about meaningful change, at least in regards to the war in Iraq. Instead you get a non-binding resolution against the war and Democratic congressmen declaring that it wouldn't be right to use Congress' "power of the purse" to influence changes in the way the war's being conducted.
Pardon? Isn't that what you were elected to Congress to do?
So the Democrats were elected with the hope they would bring about change, and instead all the people got was "a new boss, same as the old boss."
If Obama's elected he has to prove he really means this "change" business. Is he actually going to try to make a difference, or will he fall into the status quo? If he's elected but just continues with business as usual in Washington, then he'll more or less be exposed as a fraud.

Simply put, we expect our politicians to lie to us when election time comes around. So when they break their promises, while we may be pissed, it doesn't shock us.
Obama, though is promising meaningful change, and thus if he reneges on his platform it'll be devastating to his credibility, specifically because he's painted himself as being apart from the standard politician.

You nailed it.

I think Obama is the real deal, because he honestly hasn't been very effective at or comfortable with attacking Clinton in that sort of ad hominem way. I don't think it's in his nature to be a partisan attack dog. And I think that's the real contrast between himself and Clinton. Policy-wise, they're very similar. But in approach... well I think that Clinton's simple calculus is that anyone who stands in her way is evil and must be opposed. Her campaign accused Obama's of "Ken Starr" tactics by calling for her to release her tax returns. Ken Starr? The guy who spearheaded the Whitewater investigation and the Monica Lewinsky affair? And a guy who asks you for your tax returns is on that level? If she were on the INTERNET, Clinton would be getting a Drama Queen award.

It just makes me ill. The thing that infuriates me is that all these people who rail against Republican partisanship seemingly have no problem with it when it's Democratic partisanship. Hey, maybe instead of swinging from one side to the other, perhaps we could let the pendulum fall in the middle sometime? We might actually get something accomplished that way.

Or maybe remove the pendulum?

Okay, I see what you mean. And I agree that the Democratic senate's been a major disappointment, FWIW.

HUGE

People voted for change and got... um, not change

The Senate can't overturn a Bush veto, 2/3 of the Senate is needed to do that correct? The Democrats don't have a 2/3 majority.

Congress has the ability to halt all funding for the war, and that doesn't require a 2/3 majority. Just a sack.

Yeah, but they haven't even TRIED to do anything. If they passed a resolution saying "We pull out of Iraq tomorrow" and Bush vetoes it, they Dems could then paint Bush in an authoritarian light. In short, it would damage the credibility of a President who's on record as being concerned for how history portrays him.
Now of course the "bring the troops home tomorrow" message may be an extreme example, but my point is that the Democrats could use Bush's veto against him by painting him (and the GOP) as the enemy of the people's will. They haven't even tried to do this.

Further more the Democrats, in control of Congress, control all of its committees. I may be wrong about this, but seeing as the war in Iraq wasn't officially declared in Congress, the committees in Congress, which are Democratically controlled, can cut the war's funding without needing Presidential approval. Or basically, what Big Daddy just said.

Basically, the Dems dropped the ball


I agree with your take on political partisanship, and I REALLY hope you're right about Obama. Just call me "sceptical."
If he's elected and proves to be the real deal I'll be pleasantly surprised. If he's playing us all for chumps, I'll be expectedly disappointed.
I just can't shake the idea that Obama just seems to good to be true.

But if he is too good to be true, what's the worst that happens? We're right back where we started with another typical politician. I'd say that's worth the gamble.

In all honesty, I don't think we need all that much change, or experience, from our next leader. We just need someone who will listen to his (or her) advisers (otherwise known as experts on war, foreign policy, the economy, etc.) and apply their advice with a large dose of common sense based on what's best for the country as a whole...you know, come to think of it, that probably does count as "change".

But once those things are addressed, then transparency in the federal government and universal healthcare and all that would be great to have, but it's icing on the cake, really.