I Heart Huckabee.....Not!!!

Well, Lisa - I kind of skewed your poll. I don't declare a party, and in my/our state the "unwashed" voters can't vote in the primaries. However, whether it's a general election or a primary - voters must always, always, ALWAYS! vote their consciences to match their beliefs, values and points of views.

Huckabee seems just a little to "country cuddle" for my tastes. He doesn't appear presidential. Likeable, yes. Presidential, absolutely not.

I also just can't get those silly "Subway" sandwich ads out of my mind. It's great that he lost weight, but somehow I have a hard time believing hero sandwiches help people lose weight. It's really about caloric intake, exercise and hydration. I found this blurb in the Buffalo News hysterical:

I sensed many weeks ago, for example, that Mike Huckabee was surging on the Republican side. And I heard from voters this month that Clinton's effort to "go negative" had backfired, reviving the Lady Macbeth image she had worked so hard to banish. That's not all I've learned, either.

I've learned which Subway sandwiches can be safely scarfed from behind the wheel of a speeding subcompact — roast beef is safe, tuna inadvisable, meatball downright disastrous.

Btw: I voted against Lautenberg (after Torricelli was ousted) or was it McGreevy - can't remember now it was around the same time period. I think if it was Lautenberg as his ads were downright evil and he was pulled from retirement just to save the party line - and because of the very clean advertisement I'd heard by a third party individual (on public radio of all places, too). It was the best I've felt in years exiting the polls. Though, I had to hold my nose when I voted for Bob Menendez. I just felt that Kean, Jr. was too inexperienced and his attack ads were over the line. Anyone who wanted to read about Menendez's troubles needed only to pick up The Star Ledger or The New York Times. Kean's negative ads were the deal breaker for me. He didn't show the same statesmanship of his father. So he lost my vote.

Not to change the subject but another pet peeve: "There oughta be a law against negative campaign ads..." We the voters detest the mudslingers - why can't the pols stand on the issues, and let us do the sniff test. Then again, I'm not much of a boxing or world wrestling federation fan either. Greco-Roman style wrestling takes a great deal more finesse - not flash.

Well, that's because both my parents were really FDR dems (although my brother tells me Dad was a Goldwater swing democrat hawk). (Dad was a devout, authoritarian, Catholic, who slammed the door on Jevhovah's Witnesses - yeah, really!! To this day I will always gladly listen to a JW, say thanks and then send them on their mission - all but for the sins of my father. But, as a WWII veteran, we imagine he believed those ungodly communists had to be stopped in VN, and so voted for Goldwater in '64 - who had pushed to invade - and he probably voted for Nixon in '68, too. Well that certainly backfired on him - we lost one of our own in Cambodia under Nixon).

I suppose my non-affiliation stems from the contradictions I observed, the family ruckus over politics at holiday dinners, and the tumultuous politics of the sixties; that when I registered to vote I was most vehement about not declaring a political party.

I'm predicting it's Hil vs Mitt. Call me cynical, if you will.

No. I didn't know that about you Lisa. We're of the same generation, then. '68 was a very "wild and wooly" year - politically that is. Two truly traigic public assassinations, an ongoing war, an unpopular president, protests everywhere. It seemed as though the country was unravelling before our eyes.

The single most important issue for me was Civil Rights. Do you remember the riots in Newark in '67? And, the bussing riots of the 70s. Thank goodness we passed that test. Geez, and thank goodness kids aren't exposed to the kinds of mass tragedies from back when...yet we still have far to go on civil rights imho...then again... it seems every generation has some new, new horror to live through...think Columbine, VA Tech and then of course war torn places around the globe. Poverty and hunger is still here.

'72 was more explosive for me - I'll never forget an argument I had with my best friend over the contentious candidates at least from my vantage point (my parents supported McGovern - well at least Mom did and my best friend's supported Wallace - nuff said). The Civil Rights movement was cherished in our household, not so much in hers.

I would say my political compass is set to social justice/fiscal conservative/green/pro-market/liberal. A lot of contradictions there I suppose. Which is to say, I think a person's political compass can span both democratic and republican strata.

personally can't think of anything worse than the images of 9-11 to have to try to explain away to a child.

Images of a pointless, waged without a plan war in Iraq and the children there?

Hey Lisa, As you know I try to stay impartial but I have been getting beat up all day so here goes. I think children all over the world have it bad depending on their circumstances. I also a agree there is a lot of BS the media is feeding people back home not to mention the BS the anti war crowd shoves down peoples throat. I know the children in Iraq have it bad but they had it bad before we got here. And to blame the US 100% for the problems Iraqi people have right now is just falling for what so many want you to believe. We are here building schools, hospitals, and inoculating children. I am also not going to lie and say it is happy times here, but the children I see playing in the streets playing appear to be healthy normal children. And when is anyone going to blame the insurgents for any of the @!$%# going on here. It isn't Americans killing people here it is terrorist just like 9-11. But what do I know right I am out on the streets of Baghdad almost ever day I can't see the good going on. I agree with you lisa the children today with 9-11 and the children living in terror today in Iraq owe all the fear they feel to terrorist. Thanks lisa.

And one more thing we are not in Iraq as occupier we are in a Peacekeeping stance trying to train the Iraqi Arny and police, while building the infrastructure and helping to keep the country free of insurgents. And although there are man detractors we are doing our job with honor and doing our best to give the Iraqis a chance. In the past five months I have seen such a dramatic improvement. The sad thing is so many are so blinded by hate for this administration they could care less for all the positives. And only search out the negatives, and as a soldier over here at times it can be kind of demoralizing. And although most of us are aware that problem most have is with the government. It still seems at times many have turned a blind eye to the goos we are doing here. Thank Lisa I'll get off my soap box now.

. And when is anyone going to blame the insurgents for any of the @!$%# going on here

Hmmm....would there be insurgents there if we hadn't invaded? And it has been Americans killing people there. This mess is America's fault, Rob. Our country invaded and caused the destruction. There is no dressing that reality up. I guess as a soldier, you want to feel like you are doing good there, but the truth is, the damage is done and a large majority of Iraqis, day to day Iraqis want us out of their country.

And we didn't enter the country as peacekeepers and never were we invited, Rob. We are occupiers. Try reversing the situation and imagine that say, France invaded the US and won't leave our country...not too pleasant, is it?

I fear that many of those children will remember what we did to their country and hate us for being so arrogant as to invade and destroy their infrastructure.

Lisa, @ 3.7

Yes, the same was true for young people who heard reports of Pearl Harbor - magnified tens of thousands of times over. Friends of mine had that very heavy burden to explain to their children.

We must also remember our armed service personnel who leave family back home to serve, or leave this world too soon leaving children behind, or bogged down with multiple tours.

Yes, we all lost on that tragic day.

What Kenyan, Pakistani and Iraqi children must endure, or in so many other areas of the world today, it is in my mind all relative in many ways. Study war no more. Study aggression no more.

but children in the United States who witnessed 9-11 or saw images of in on TV were traumatized as well.

Lisa, are you seriously comparing kids in the US who might have seen the events of 9/11 on TV to children in Iraq living in a war zone, with limited running water and electricity, who are most likely refugees, and who more likely than not have lost a relative to the our invasion?

I don't know if I should laugh or cry at that statement of yours. Wow.

Rob - when are you going to stop killing and maiming children in Iraq?

and who more likely than not have lost a relative to the our invasion?

Because everyone in Iraq is related to the same .003% of the population?

I don't know if I should laugh or sigh at that statement of yours. Wow.

Yeah OttO, Thing is I don't remember killing or maiming these children. Although I do remember giving them food, medicine, and potable water. The truth is I do think Americans Are here doing good, and although you might doubt the initial decision to invade. I think the future for Iraq is better now than it many actually think. But you know I can only write of the positive changes I see here so much and hope people listen. But I just think may people here are just selective about what they do and don't believe.

Mr. Rob,

Thank you for your services.

TJG,

I don't think Lisa said anything to that effect at all.

She and I were comparing events between 1963 - 1970s and our perceptions of those events with those of today and today's generation of youngsters. Lisa astutely pointed out, and which I negligently overlooked - that parents had a great burden to explain the events of 9/11 to their children around the world. A horrible task indeed. A horrible event for all children around the world. World citizens (not just US citizens) also died in the Trade Towers and smoldered for months! Months!! It was absolutely unbearable for anyone living in this part of the country. Christ, families are still receiving body parts to lay peacefully to rest. Read Kristen Breitweiser's Wake-Up Call: The Political Education of a 9/11 Widow, if you haven't already.

You live in SF, right? Well, I can tell you breathing in the ashes of your loved ones, neighbors, friends and strangers is ghastly! Ghastly! The smell of death, it's the same in each and every culture.

.I'm sure it's just awful to be a kid there and is as dangerous for them theer as anyone.....but children in the United States who witnessed 9-11 or saw images of in on TV were traumatized as well.

That is what Lisa said, caltha. It looks to me as if she is saying that seeing images of 9/11 on TV is as bad as living daily n a war zone, living a 9/11 fear daily, as do the children in Iraq. You're comparing a single event to daily life in a war zone, which is disturbing.

It is less tragic, Lisa, in that it was one hit and our infrastructure wasn't knocked out. Nor did the hijackers invade our country, staying for years.

I'm still astounded that anyone would even compare seeing 9/11 on TV to living in a war zone.

And it wasn't an act of war, it was terrorists...if we are at war, where are the sacrifices, where is the continued fighting here? We put ourselves in the position of occupying a sovereign nation that had nothing to do with 9/11. That is the real tragedy.

Jones Girl, I have one question for you. Do you honestly feel US troops go out of our way to kill or cause harm to civilians? In my observations it seems some on the left act like it is military doctrine to just cause as much death and misery as possible. I am here to tell you this is B/S. Yes initially it was an invasion and yes unfortunately innocent civilians died, i hate this as much as anyone. But I never see some people ever condemning Saddam or the insurgents, they let hatred for the current administration overshadow the fact that it sucked here before the war. These days in Iraq it is a peace keeping mission the only people fighting like it is a war are the insurgents. Would there be insurgents if we where here, probably not. But that being said we are not entirely to blame for them either. This bull@!$%# has been going on a lot longer than we have been here. My point is this the US and Bush are not entirely to blame. And although I have problems with the way things have been conducted I do know that the US is actively trying to get things fixed here. But as I have written before we both have differing opinion and nothing neither of us say or do will change these opinions.

At the start of the war, our soldiers were there to kill.

And as I said before, the insurgents wouldn't be there killing if we hadn't invaded. We broke Iraq, we are primarily to blame for the mess and the deaths as we invaded, and invaded with little in the way of a plan.

I disagree that we are there as peacekeepers now. We are an occupying force, we were never invited to be in their country.

Saddam didn't create the invasion, nor did the insurgents. Bush did. We have no right being there, none.

I understand all your points. I am also not happy with certain aspects of this. I appreciate your point of view and have tried to understand where you are coming from. I am just not sure anything I say will get you to see another angle that is a big reason I steer clear of these types of talks thanks for your time and comments.

I've attempted to see the good in us invading or being there, Rob, and I just don't see any, though I realize what is done is done and we need to make the best of what has occurred.

In my ideal world, that would mean leaving and sending over contractors and professionals to rebuild what we broke, infrastructure wise, and getting the military out. After all, insurgents are primarily going after military and those Iraqis who associate with us. Right now, we are merely pouring money into it and not helping.

OK fair enough although I must be dreaming of the good things I see here. Thanks for being at least decent about this conversation I really do appreciate that.

TJG,

Again, I made no comparison between 9/11 and children in Iraq, with the exception that parents (and those in care of orphans) are burdened with explaining the rationale behind the violence. It is the same in every culture.

Do I understand correctly? Are you saying that children aren't traumatized by violent events and that it's easier for a parent to explain to a child the events of 9/11 than it is for Iraqi parents explaining war? I find each of these tasks an equal parental burden, just as it was for my parents to explain the assassinations of JFK, RFK and MLK, Jr, violent war protests, and images of the Vietnam War being broadcast during the nightly news during the dinner hour. Does it really matter which form is worse? My belief system is such that "violence is never justified". Never.

What I find disturbing is that some people can minimize and trivialize any child's traumatic experience of violence in all of its forms.

Children that witness violent, bloody aggression are traumatized - this would include children living in: the NY metro area on September 11, 2001, Iraq (under US occupation AND Saddam Hussein's leadership), Pakistan, Kenya, Rwanda, El Salvador, Serbia,...the list is long.

(Sorry Lisa for veering off-topic on Huckabee.)

and that it's easier for a parent to explain to a child the events of 9/11 than it is for Iraqi parents explaining war?

Yes, I am saying that it is easier to explain a one-time hit on the WTC than it is to explain living in a war zone. I think it is ridiculous that anyone would think otherwise. 9/11 was tragic, but to compare it to what the Iraqis deal with daily--DAILY--is a stretch.

Well, McCain won in 2000 and lost the Presidency. I don't want McCain, Ron Paul of Pick-a-boo as the nominee, I keep my fingers crossed.

McCain would have been better than bush

lisa,

Let's see. I think that the Dems are nervous. They thought to win a sweeping elections and......seems the contrary.

McCain is use to make deals but Romney and Thompson are use to make important decisions.

Good ridance, Senators in bsota.

I think that the Dems are nervous.

Hardly, especially looking at what the Repubs offer, the lack of money on your side, the number of seats y'all have to defend.

Oh, dear,

Read the NYT's Caucus. The Republican had been keeping the money for the nominee. Dean is screaming.

www.drudgereport.com

I think you will be surprised at how many like Hillary. And most of those polled seem to not be ready to trust the country with Repubs at the helm again.

Face it Lisa, the GOP is lackluster this year, handicapped by Bush's errors and in dire financial straits.

All the Dems I know aren't worried at all, unless the Repubs pull their usual dirty tricks, which is really the only way I see you guys having a chance in any race this year.

You go on thinking that, Lisa. Right now, your party has no candidate that appeals to moderates and barely one that appeals to any in your party.

I can't wait to listen to you guys during Hillary's terms. Somehow, I have a feeling that you won't be so fast to posit that standing behind the President is necessary.

LOL---Dems fear Rudy? LOL! The guy has scandals galore and talk about a lack of experience--yeah, he was mayor on 9/11. He has no foreign relations experience and bungled being mayor. Oh, and he seems to be dropping in most states, hugely.

And McCain--please. He's inconsistent and a flip-flopper.

But thanks for a good laugh!

Well, Lisa you could say things haven't been going so well for Hil since your pop question last October. But...we shall see how well her mettle (and her bank account) hold.

It's awful that American politics still remain all about Benjamins (and I'm sure there's a competition afoot to top GWB's campaign spending - makes a freaking maggot gag). I think if I'm in a very contrary mood come November, then I'll write in Bill Bradley just for badness. But, I'll never tell.

TJG - About Rudy - After Billy the kid semi-copulating in the Oval Office what could scandalize us? I am not looking for a Saint I am looking for a firm hand to be President.

The GOP candidates are doing a lot better than Hillary that even hired baby sitters, etc., etc.

Hmmm,, Lisa...so hung up a consensual BJ, yet so OK with a serial womanizer, like Rudy, who put the bill for his mistress to the taxpayers.

Double standard much?

Not to mention Rudy's business cohorts, truly a disturbing bunch, yet I guess that (R) next to his name changes all, right, Lisa?

Hillary can handily beat anyone on the Repub side, especially since the majority in this country are sick of the Republicans' handling of everything from Iraq to the economy. There is nothing new in the Repub party, just the same ol'tired garbage of the Bush admin.

det-

I want an astute President that is able to sort it out difficult situations that will come for sure.

yet you have been supporting W all this time? something here makes no sense. you wanna try to 'splain that one?

lisa,

That's right! I don't think I ever congratulated you on that! Discussions with you are my brief brushes with fame.

Did it feel funny to have your question be so prominent in the news? Did you call everyone you knew and say "That was mine!!!"

:0)

Consentual or not the Oval Office shouldn't "be the place for personal business".

That's great, lisaed. I saw something about that being regarded as the most important moment. I told my husband, "Heh, I sort of kind of know her, that makes me soooo cool."

Pick-a-boo, lisa.

huckster = huckabee

Yet you let Bush's lies go unchallenged, Lisa.

It would be wonderful if Pubbies held their side to the same standards as they do the Dems.

Bush won't go under oath, Lisa.

But you go ahead and think Clinton's BJ is as bad as what Bush has done...talk about believing something despite having facts.

And it really depends on the meaning of knowingly lied...Bush has decieved and concealed many a time.

Countless occassions, Lisa?

Name them.

Go ahead and be smug about Bush never having gone under oath, smirking and deceiving the American people. Go ahead and pretend that Clinton's BJ actually meant anything. It is good enough for me that the majority of Americans now see Bush and his supporters for what they are and don't trust the Republican party as a result.

The impeachment proceedings against Clinton failed, no matter how you try to bring it up. And when you do bring it up, it is nothing more than a reminder that the worst the Repugs could find on Clinton was a BJ, despite millions spent and time devoted to investigating him. Really puts you guys in perspective.

But Lisa, I have to be honest. You are one of the minority who could see Bush kick a puppy on live TV and look the other way or blame it on someone else. You will never seek out the truth about this Admin or hold them accountable because it wouldn't fit your republican worldview.

But I can rest assured that the majority of the country is with me now and it's a good feeling.

Bush has not overtly, knowingly outright lied to the American people

wow! this is the stuff that SNL skits are made from.

Come to think of it, tschreck, that might be a true statement, since I doubt Bush knows much about what he parrots.

""Everybody in politics lies, but they do it with such ease, it's troubling."

When you can do it easily that's a sure sign of trouble, like possible sociopathy or psychopathy. I guess they justify it to themselves at first and then it becomes habit, or second nature, or a way of life. It becomes a much bigger problem when you start believing your own bullcrap. There's a saying I use sometimes regarding myself on occasion:

"I only have two braincells left. One of them is full of crap and the other one believes it."

It's a sign of a sick mind.

Brenda, lisa, TJG:

I hope I don't get in any gender trouble disagreeing with three women at once, though they be of widely divergent views (interesting in it's own right).

No. There's nothing troubling about politicians lying. Since all politicans lie because they have to in order to acquire and hold power, the trouble isn't the lying.

To be blunt: In Democracies, politicians who do not lie do not win office. Period. (It is also the case in other forms of government, but for different reasons.) It's our fault that politicians lie because when they tell the truth we destroy them.

Since all political leaders lie, I therefore vastly prefer:

1. That they do it well, and

2. That they do it in the national interest.

What's so fascinating is that if I took a sounding of all but the most extreme views on the Vine, you three would almost perfectly define the spectrum. And you're all three wrong to be so troubled by "lies."

So what does that make me?

So what does that make me?

Jack :P

Jack,

Sorry, "tell a lie well?" C'mon.

Yes, all politicians lie (it's human nature). Trust, however, is so much harder to restore when the truth is finally revealed. Sometimes it best if politicians just shaddup.

Jack,

I'd never be a successful politician in that case. I'm practically physically incapable of lying. It's bizarre.

One problem I have with liars is that many times it is completely unneccessary. Take Bill Clinton, for example. I would have respected him if he had just come out and said "Damn, I screwed up big time." I think the American public has an amazing capacity to forgive it's leaders as long as they are not complete insulting @!$%#s. Plus we tend to have remarkably short attention spans. And most of us are complete idiots anyway.

Why bother to lie to a bunch of ADD addled morons when a "Damn that was a dumb thing to do and I'm sorry about that" will do just as well?

Brenda:

Look. I have no reason to think that you, Brenda Mayer, are personally lying when you say this, and judging your character from the eight months or whatever that I've known you on the Vine, I have every reason to think you are not:

Take Bill Clinton, for example. I would have respected him if he had just come out and said "Damn, I screwed up big time."

But the fact is, most people who say that now are lying. How do I know? Simple. If you dig deep enough in the Starr Report primary materials (the 8,000 pages, not the famous Report itself) you will find documents related to the polling Dick Morris did immediately when the Scandal broke. If Clinton had done as you claim the first week, he'd have been out of the White House the second week. Clinton had to lie that first week to hold onto power. When the Scandal opened, most people wanted him out if he had done what he was accused of. By the end, most people wanted him to stay despite what he was accused of.

The funny thing is, the morning the Scandal broke I thought Monica was a psychotic. At 3 pm that same day I knew she was telling the truth and that Clinton was lying. But I supported him anyway; even helped him beat the rap--but the one thing I never did was deny that he was lying.

caltha:

Sometimes it best if politicians just shaddup.

Now THAT we can agree on.

However, there be times a statesman has to actively assert a deliberate falsehood for reasons of state or ambition.

But I always thought most of Bush's worst shaddup moments were times he told an ingenuous truth, "He tried to kill my Daddy" being one of the most remarkable.

Jack,

I didn't know that about the polling. I know they all lie, I'm not convinced that they always have to, but I recognize that they do.

I was looking into psychopathy recently and came across this definition:

The prototypical psychopath has deficits or deviances in several areas: interpersonal relationships, emotion, and self-control. Psychopaths lack a sense of guilt or remorse for any harm they may have caused others, instead rationalizing the behavior, blaming someone else, or denying it outright.[30] Psychopaths also lack empathy towards others in general, resulting in tactlessness, insensitivity, and contemptuousness. All of this belies their tendency to make a good, likable first impression. Psychopaths have a superficial charm about them, enabled by a willingness to say anything without concern for accuracy or truth. This extends into their pathological lying and willingness to con and manipulate others for personal gain or amusement. The prototypical psychopath's emotions are described as a shallow affect, meaning their overall way of relating is characterized by mere displays of friendliness and other emotion for personal gain; the displayed emotion need not correlate with felt emotion, in other words. Shallow affect also describes the psychopath's tendency for genuine emotion to be short lived and egocentric with an overall cold demeanor. Their behavior is impulsive and irresponsible, often failing to keep a job or defaulting on debts.[30]

It seems scarily similar to what we witness in our politicians.

But the fact is, most people who say that now are lying.

Actually I said it then, too. I even remember when and where and who I was with. My memory from this time is so strong because I was talking to my then 72 year old devout Catholic grandmom about it and she was so mad at the people making a fuss about the Lewinsky scandal. She was irate that pubs were making us look like idiots to the Europeans. She said, I quote, "They're laughing at us over there!" It cracked me up because I wasn't expecting it.

Brenda:

As I say, I trust your word on that.

Just not most people's.

:^{)>

caltha:

We have met the psychopath and he is us.

So what does that make me?

The man most likely to be beat up by three smart chicks--and a man oddly enamored with psychopaths.

As I say, I trust your word on that.

Just not most people's.

Thanks, Jack. That means a lot to me.

lisa:

My big-picture take is that Clinton was perjury trapped, which is why I fought so hard to defend him irrespective of the techical question of perjury (although it so happens he did not commit perjury; there was only one instance where it was even close, and that instance was techinally flawed). I don't want to get into all the little picture details (in part because I'm writing an article as a reciprocal to Epiph's).

I don't think Bush lied us into Iraq. In fact, I'd rather he had. I think he believed his own clippings. I do, however, believe that many of his inferior officials (I mean that in the Constitutional sense even though Colin Powell was indeed an inferior Secretary of State) were either so dishonest or so deceptive that their public statements amounted to lies.

You're a good Catholic Girl, so you know about Lies of Omission.

lisa:

I felt the same way about Scooter Libby.

I do appreciate that, I really do. Now I also think Libby was hung out to dry by the Bush Administration because they were afraid of the possible electoral consequences in early 2004, that is, they shouldn't have let him get trapped, but I do understand rfeeling.

tschreck,

I agree that Shrubya has been a deplorable embarassment. Believe me, it was a tough decision to make.

tsc,

Our Congress voted for the war and double check the statements of our actual politicians about Iraq.

W ran in 2000 for a change of government in Iraq. More clear it's impossible.

W ran in 2000 for a change of government in Iraq. More clear it's impossible.

what?

i'd love to see some evidence of that whopper.

I don't sell whoppers, check the platform of GWB in 2000. Also WJC had the blueprints for going to Iraq.

no det you don't

you do try real hard to give them away though.. good thing too, because very few people would buy much of anything you sell.

no donut for you.

Kath, yeah. Go Richardson!!

Sorry, as much as he'd like to do so - Kucinich can't rollback NAFTA (which btw, I'm reading Greenspan's The Age of Turbulence, NAFTA came together during Poppy Bush's watch, Clinton got credit. Isn't that rich and always the way?). I'm hoping Richardson makes it into a Cabinet post.

lisa,

No matter what, we will be united in November.

No matter what, we will be united in November.

Too bad most political scholars don't agree on this and trends show Repubs staying home if anyone in the current field is the nominee, eh, Det?

Dear TJG,

Whose are those "political scholars"?

Hi cheech, I would watch the Caucus on TV and vote in November.

I don't have names, but I have heard the comments on PBS's NewsHour.

TJG

Remember that the Polls and experts were giving the Presidency to Gore and Kerry, just when the votes are counted is what counts.

Republicans go and vote, that's a fact that you can't discount.

And Repubs aren't motivated based on the candidates you guys have. Even Repubs don't want more of the same, which is all you offer.

As for 00 and 04...Gore won the popular vote in 00 and there were many irregularities in 04. Of course, they benefitted you, so you look the other way.

TJG,

Gore lost because the Dems did not support him the second time.

Do you think that I want the "duet" back in the WH and paying for the chickens that the brother of Hillary eats or Edwards with his fake "fighting" for the poor?

Det,

Gore won the popular vote. Deal with it.

Honestly, what you or any Bush supporter in 08 want in the Whitehouse doesn't concern me You are a small, dwindling minority of thought and are the fringe now. The country had to suffer under Bush, now it is time for the adults to take charge and clean up your messes.

We are a Republic and the votes that counts are in the electoral colleges.

W was wining the Popular Vote until the very last minute.

Deal with it, please.

Bottom line, the majority didn't want Bush. He lost the popular vote.

And it wasn't the electoral college that gave it to Bush, it was SCOTUS.

Yes, because your side doesn't campaign?

TJG

My side is accused always of being snob.

Sheesh, Obama has as much money as Hillary.

Let's face it and I posted already: Dems are worried and scared that the Evangelicos will give another 4 years to a Republican President.

Det, Dems aren't worried.

Where are you getting this from?

Who the heck is Pick-a-boo?

No Dems are sweating and the Evangelicals don't seem to like anyone running.

But you go on and think that...

Pick-a-boo is Huckaboo and the Evangelicos are giving a good headache to McAuliffe.

Rob's a good guy, but not impartial.

but not impartial

But also far more aware of what's really going on than we are. I'll believe a 'viner before a media soundbite any day.

Thanks Brenda, I do try to be impartial when it comes to my articles on Iraq here on newsvine. But I guess because I am an American soldier I do see thing different than say a a reporter. But I do try to be unbiased as I can with these and only write what I have seen or done.

But also far more aware of what's really going on than we are. I'll believe a 'viner before a media soundbite any day.

Far more aware as a soldier, but I wouldn't trust his word on how it is for Iraqis.

I can't think of anyone who'd really want a Democrat in the White House, Lisa.

no better news could be had!

Agreed, tschreck.

Bye bye Thompson and Ghouliani, bit by bit. Huck would be a double digit loser to any Dem.

Thompson 13% - McCain 12%.

lisa:

Oh, I'm liking what I see all around. Even my guy Joe Biden didn't get shut out. He's 5th with 1% and 8 state-convention delegates. Not much, but it beats Chris Dodd with 0% and 0 state delagates.

Hillary's in trouble. She can't possibly survive past next Wednesday unless she wins NH.

Jack,

I heard news reports there were vast numbers of people registering at the door. I suppose that's a democratic approach.

Is Edwards positioning himself to be Obama's running mate? Taking a page from Kucinich? And, using Bruce Springsteen as theme music.

Hillary up next.

Caltha:

Hell, not yet Edwards isn't. He's gotta figure he still has a shot at the top slot. Good showing tonight and his message is gaining traction.

Is it me? Or did Edwards, Hillary AND Huckabee sound like they were using the same freaking speech writer? Blech!!! Edwards seems most inspired. Hillary - just tired. And, Huckabee as Reagan redux as a Democrat.

Prairie fire? What the ....? Jack, bingo Repubs have picked their populist.

Huckabee is using language juxtaposed to Edwards hate thingy that Epiphany seeded earlier today...oh boy...here we go...

Hey, is that Chuck Norris behind Huckabee? Or a stand-in? Yikes!!

caltha:

The Wall Streeters can't let Huck continue this economic-populist message.

Yup, that was the real Chuck Norris.

Jack, I imagine today won't be such a great day on the Street. Who knows? Haven't been following business news the past two days. Markets were down yesterday, I think.

To listen to Alfred Goldman, things should look nice and rosy by spring to midyear and a tax hike may not be all that bad for a 63 month old bull market, unless of course bad economic policies are proposed. Okee dokey, Al. Hmmm...who do you think he means? Huckabee, Obama, Edwards.

I still think Hil vs. Mitt is what Mr. Goldman is banking on. Then again, New Yorkers really couldn't give a @!$%# at the gate start, we shall see how this pans out. I'm gonna take a hunch that Romney might fair better in NH. And, I'm betting Obama might do well here in Jersey amongst dems in the larger cities and with younger people (not that our primary matters - not sure whether things will be wrapped up before we vote - what's the deadline again? February 5?).

Hillary has a substantial lead here as of 12/09. According to a Rutgers/Eagleton poll in early December. You probably know better on stats.

I have to say Obama is an excellent public speaker, I just wish he had more substance. Hell, I wish any of them had more substance. I want to know who's got a fiscal plan. The $9T in national debt should be this country's greatest concern and foreign policy.

Hillary sounded really tired and she lost me with her Champion/President blah, blah, blah. She sounded like Superwoman at the end. Egads.

caltha:

Sure!! Wall Street loves certainty, and a Hillary vs. Romney race would let the Wall Streeters plan years in advance. Already have their inside contact info on their Palm Pilots.

They have no idea whata former Community Organizer from Chicago or a former Baptist preacher from rural Arkansas might do. @!$%# .... they might even believe the stuff they spew.

Hey, did you pick up Greenspan's book yet? ;-)

BTW: I miss the financial forecasts that used stormy seas, and fair weather metaphors of yesteryear.

Oh yeah? Wall Street loves uncertainty just as much, brokers get paid their commissions on every sale.

I still want to hear about candidates' fiscal plans. Where are their god-damned fiscal plans??? Got any good links? WHY must we wait until December in the election year???

lisa:

I'm hoping he cuts a deal to be Secretary of State in a potential Democratic Administration.

The rumor in the bloggy left before I conked out last night was that he was leaning to Obama. Maybe even have happened by now.

In all likelihood, Obama will choose Oprah as his running mate. Free cars for everyone and since American corporations are evil they'll be manufactured overseas, with mandated mass monthly book club readings. I think people will recognize platitudes, while pretty, mean little, even from the O-O campaign.

I intend to support my party's candidate.

The last thing I read was a 260-page zoning ordinance. Yikes!

I wouldn't mind a Vice President Chuck Norris. He'd kick the stuffin's outa those terrorists.

He appears to be all talk and no hat.

Lisa, he thinks it's a big ole stovepipe.