The 2008 Presidential Elections - Chapter 3 [Archive]

pzarquon

June 4th, 2008, 07:15 PM

Works for me!

Of course, while the conventional wisdom is that Obama's clinched it, Clinton's non-concession speech (http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2008/06/hillary-clinton.html) (a flat, calculating composition versus Obama's victory speech (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/04/america/04obama-text.php)) has folks wondering whether she really will drag things out until the convention.

Of course, folks have been saying for weeks that Clinton's actually just looking for a good time to bow out on a high-note... reports that sound like a little bit of wishful thinking on the part of some media outlets. The latest "scoop" is that she's going to quit on Saturday (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/us/politics/05dems.html?ref=us).

Is she angling for a VP slot? Sounds like. Part of me thinks this "Dream Ticket" is the only surefire way to win back the White House... but that mixing Obama with Clinton will ultimately be a toxic move that'll leave most with a bad taste in their mouths.

Who else would be a good veep to Obama? John Edwards (http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2008/01/14/is-john-edwards-trying-to-become-obamas-vice-president/)?

Meanwhile... how are the VP prospects looking for McCain (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/22/us/politics/22veep.html?ref=politics)? Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida, Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, and Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts are on the shortlist...

cynsaligia

June 4th, 2008, 08:52 PM

Of course, while the conventional wisdom is that Obama's clinched it, Clinton's non-concession speech (http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2008/06/hillary-clinton.html) (a flat, calculating composition versus Obama's victory speech (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/04/america/04obama-text.php)) has folks wondering whether she really will drag things out until the convention.

oh geez! :rolleyes:

in 1980, ted kennedy took his campaign for the presidency all the way to the democratic national convention floor--which, let me remind you, was in mid-august of that year. he was behind jimmy carter by about a thousand delegates. compare that one thousand to clinton's being behind by about 225. yet several months ago, kennedy had the hypocritical audacity to announce that clinton should quit. pfft!

kennedy, to his credit, just a day after finally conceding, gave a rousing keynote speech that electrified the convention's audience. text and audio of kennedy's speech here (http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/tedkennedy1980dnc.htm). i recommend reading/listening to it--that speech certainly resonates today.

additionally, people make much ado about the clintons not being able to handle that their time has come and gone. i say, far from it! i say, you merely need to consider the kennedys. despite ted's failed presidential candidacy, his (family's) influence remained a guiding hand on the DNC for decades. no one could deny that there would not have been an obama if there had not been a clinton. despite pronouncements about her being a bitch, a shrew, a crybaby, a nutcracker, ballbreaker, and reminiscent of a nagging first wife, i forsee sen. clinton skillfully becoming a catalyst--as kennedy did, 28 years ago--to mend whatever hurts there might be within the party.

so let me ask y'all this--why was it okay that kennedy did what he did, but when clinton does it (and the margin between her and obama is about a quarter as twas between kennedy and carter), she is excoriated for it?

Frankie's Market

June 4th, 2008, 09:49 PM

Of course, folks have been saying for weeks that Clinton's actually just looking for a good time to bow out on a high-note... reports that sound like a little bit of wishful thinking on the part of some media outlets. The latest "scoop" is that she's going to quit on Saturday (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/us/politics/05dems.html?ref=us).

The reports say that in a conference call that Clinton had with most of her superdelegate supporters in Congress today, they were not pleased with her speech on Tuesday, which was seen as being ungracious to Obama on what should have been a historic night for him to enjoy. And they let her know it in no uncertain terms. Any thoughts that the Clinton camp had about carrying on into next week with the support of those congress members was dashed and they want her to shut it down by Saturday at the latest.

Is she angling for a VP slot? Sounds like. Part of me thinks this "Dream Ticket" is the only surefire way to win back the White House... but that mixing Obama with Clinton will ultimately be a toxic move that'll leave most with a bad taste in their mouths.

I personally don't think Obama needs Clinton to win the electoral map.

BTW, Obama announced a 3 person search team for his running mate. (One of whom is Caroline Kennedy.) While the final decision will no doubt remain Obama's, it does divorce him from the vetting process that this search team will apply to screening out the unsuitable candidates. One thing that this search team might use to eliminate Hillary from consideration is getting Bill to reveal the list of donors to his presidential library and the WJC Foundation. A list that, for whatever reason, the Clintons have kept close to the vest.

Who else would be a good veep to Obama? John Edwards (http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2008/01/14/is-john-edwards-trying-to-become-obamas-vice-president/)?

Meanwhile... how are the VP prospects looking for McCain (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/22/us/politics/22veep.html?ref=politics)? Gov. Charlie Crist of Florida, Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, and Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts are on the shortlist...

Let the veepstakes now BEGIN!!! :)

Leo Lakio

June 5th, 2008, 07:40 AM

Let the veepstakes now BEGIN!!! :)My top choice at this point would be New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson.

Ron Whitfield

June 5th, 2008, 11:02 AM

I think Virginia Senator, Jim Webb would be the best choice.
But I could be happy with Hillary as well.

Vanguard

June 5th, 2008, 12:01 PM

Who else would be a good veep to Obama? John Edwards (http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2008/01/14/is-john-edwards-trying-to-become-obamas-vice-president/)?

Wesley Clark
Pros: Powerful military credentials
Cons: Brash reputation may negate McCain's reputation for having a temper.

Bill Richardson
Pros: Executive experience (Gov of NM), UN Ambassador = strong foreign policy credit
Cons: Double minority ticket may be too much for most to handle

Kathleen Sebelius
Pros: Executive Experience (Gov of Kansas), two time democratic governor of traditionally republican state, woman politician with proven credentials
Cons: Insufficient name recognition, lost opportunity to find someone with foreign policy credits

No Ménage-à-trois for Obama (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/no_menageatrois_for_obama.html).

It seems a primary contention Hillary's well televised supporters have with Obama is that he "stole" the election. I wonder where all these people were when George W won in 2000 via electoral college votes?

Does anyone think that Lingle might be on McCain's list for VP candidates?

Leo Lakio

June 5th, 2008, 12:22 PM

Bill Richardson
Pros: Executive experience (Gov of NM), UN Ambassador = strong foreign policy credit
Cons: Double minority ticket may be too much for most to handle
... and member of the House of Representatives, and Secretary of Energy, so he also has Congressional and Cabinet experience.

It would be interesting to see how many people would consider it a con to be a "double-minority" ticket, a point that the GOP could exploit as "not representing a majority of Americans." The fact that the Democratic nominee was, for a long time, going to be either a woman or an African-American, may represent a long-overdue shift in American political perspectives.

Vanguard

June 5th, 2008, 12:32 PM

Good points, Leo Lakio!

One point about Obama-Richardson;

They wouldn't only be a "double minority ticket", but they'd also be a double multiracial ticket. It's something we as current and former Kama'aina are well-acquainted with, but I'm not sure if it's even something most Americans preceive. It seems to most, Obama is simply black, and Richardson is simply hispanic. And the multiracial America is growing impressively, see this article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24542138).

Also, an unlikely, but good match-up (IMO):

Chuck Hagel
Pros: Strong, anti-war republican senator who distanced himself from the Bush administration would make for a great unity ticket
Cons: Two senators on the same ticket, both without executive experience, would be a glaring negative

tutusue

June 5th, 2008, 12:41 PM

[...]
Does anyone think that Lingle might be on McCain's list for VP candidates?
Must admit this crossed my mind for a fleeting second but not based on qualifications; rather, on how mind blowing it might be to have 2 people with such strong Hawaii ties running for the top 2 positions at the same time! :eek: :D

Ron Whitfield

June 5th, 2008, 04:39 PM

I think tutusue's avatar would have a better shot at the VP spot.

Gosh..., I hope I don't have to appologize for that too...

Frankie's Market

June 5th, 2008, 08:58 PM

Hagel's name has been bandied about. Selecting him would certainly put an exclamation point on the idea of Obama's administration truly being bi-partisan. But putting him on the ticket will probably be seen as too big a gamble. After the very tough primary battle, Obama needs to pick a VP who will do his/her part to unite the Democrats. A cabinet position might be a more realistic prospect for Hagel.

It's true that an Obama/Richardson ticket would be a dual-minority one. I don't see why that would be any less viable than an Afro-American/female ticket, which is what an Obama/Clinton pairing would be.

I still strongly believe that Obama will benefit most from someone who can deliver votes from him in the South, like Richardson, Clark, or Webb. If not, then it will have to be someone who can carry a big battleground state, like Ed Rendell (Pennsylvania governor) or Ted Strickland (Ohio governor).

timkona

June 5th, 2008, 11:10 PM

The Dem side of this election is kinda like watching a plane crash in slow motion replay. You know the outcome already, but you keep hoping for them poor suckers to live through it. The funny part is that the next load of passengers will just get on the same plane thinking it might end differently. Perhaps Obama should pick McCain as his VP?

dang i crack me up. :D

tutusue

June 6th, 2008, 12:04 AM

I think tutusue's avatar would have a better shot at the VP spot.

Gosh..., I hope I don't have to appologize for that too...
<sniff>
.
.
.
.
:D

Vanguard

June 6th, 2008, 05:46 AM

David Brooks: Obama is elitist -- he'd never go to the salad bar at Applebee's.

Applebee's: we don't have a salad bar (http://mediamatters.org/items/200806030004?f=h_latest)

TuNnL

June 6th, 2008, 05:59 AM

Wesley Clark
Pros: Powerful military credentials
Cons: Brash reputation may negate McCain's reputation for having a temper.I understand what you are saying regarding Wes’ “brash reputation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYWG-RDG4F8),” but I think he has come a long way since 2004 election. Frankly, I don't think you can deny his foreign policy credentials even against a war hero like Jim Webb. Gen. Clark is the 4-star general who led the last successful U.S. military campaign in Kosovo. He also ran a multi-state campaign for U.S. President before bowing out, so he at least been somewhat vetted.

Frankly, I believe Wes is the smartest candidate among all the VP hopefuls, and would shore up Obama’s weaknesses - in addition to being a top adviser for Hillary's now-defunct campaign, and thus represent an “Olive branch” to the Clintonistas. I think Obama gets the best of Hillary’s leadership team with Clark, and he can further placate her supporters by appointing her to the Supreme Court.

Vanguard

June 6th, 2008, 06:19 AM

I understand what you are saying regarding Wes’ “brash reputation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYWG-RDG4F8),” but I think he has come a long way since 2004 election.

Agreed. I for one would be happy with an Obama/Clark match-up. I'm hoping the fact that he's come a long way will shine strongly if he's picked.

Jon Stewart mocks "Hillary is inevitable" pandits (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/05/jon-stewart-mocks-hillary_n_105386.html). Ah, 2007 -- the time when Hillary vs. Giuliani made me want to Ralph :p

timkona

June 6th, 2008, 08:58 AM

Hillary Clinton as a Supreme Court Justice......... :eek:

I'm so crackin up.

Vanguard

June 7th, 2008, 05:46 PM

Hula dancers from Obama, Japan to dance in Obama's hometown (http://starbulletin.com/2008/06/07/features/story01.html)

Frankie's Market

June 7th, 2008, 06:39 PM

Now that the page has finally been turned on the Clintons, the new sheriff in town is leaving his imprint on the Democratic Party.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080606/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_money

WASHINGTON - The Democratic National Committee, now operating under Barack Obama's fundraising rules, on Friday returned about $100,000 in money from lobbyists and political action committees.

The donations were already "in the pipeline" when Obama, the presumed Democratic presidential nominee, instituted the standards for the committee, a party official said.

Obama imposed the rules to avoid a conflict with his own ban on money from federal lobbyists and PACs. On Thursday he sent one of his top strategists to the DNC to help with its general election operation.

Republican John McCain does accept money from lobbyists and PACs as does the Republican National Committee and other party committees.

So both the Obama and the DNC will no longer be accepting money from lobbyists and PACs. I wonder if McCain and the Republicans will rise up to meeting that challenge?

OH HO!!! Silly me! If McCain does that, a huge chunk of his campaign staff will be walking out on him. ;)

TuNnL

June 8th, 2008, 05:13 AM

I wonder if McCain and the Republicans will rise up to meeting that challenge? ... If McCain does that, a huge chunk of his campaign staff will be walking out on him. ;)Frankly, John McCain has more fundamental things to worry about, when nearly the entire Fox News anchor team rips his victory speech (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjQnGvxoTJE). If you’ve watched the actual June 3 McCain oration you can understand how even Faux Noise couldn’t find a kind word for the GOP presumptive nominee. I couldn’t even watch the whole speech, it was so painful! He would do well to find a VP who’s a more polished speaker (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtL-1V3OZ0c), and have that person do most of the talking for the rest of the campaign. :eek: My prediction is 2008 will set a record for write-ins on the Republican ballot. (Go Ron Paul (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWfIhFhelm8)!) :D

Leo Lakio

June 8th, 2008, 09:06 AM

Will Ron Paul be this election's Ralph Nader, the "spoiler" candidate that will be blamed for the loss of a major party's candidate?

Will enough Republicans who dislike Sen. McCain actually refuse to vote for their party's man, thus giving the White House to a Democrat?

And ... what does "Anybody But Obama" Scrivener have to say these days? Will he support the Libertarian candidate, former Georgia Republican Representative (and Clinton impeachment "manager") Bob Barr?

Answers coming this fall.

Frankie's Market

June 8th, 2008, 06:04 PM

Frankly, John McCain has more fundamental things to worry about,

More fundamental than trying to keep up with Obama in fundraising? Money is the lifeblood of any presidential campaign. So far, McCain has raised $115 million. Obama? More than double, at $264 million. And that figure doesn't even include the month of May, while McCain's figure does. With this significant monetary advantage, Obama's campaign could proceed with a 50 state strategy that would force McCain to spend his more limited funds where he doesn't want to (i.e. buying media advertising time in traditionally red states just to protect the GOP's base.)

If you’ve watched the actual June 3 McCain oration you can understand how even Faux Noise couldn’t find a kind word for the GOP presumptive nominee. I couldn’t even watch the whole speech, it was so painful! He would do well to find a VP who’s a more polished speaker, and have that person do most of the talking for the rest of the campaign.

Problem is,... you can't have your veep candidate doing most of the talking and overshadowing the lead man on the ticket. It's only going to make McCain appear even weaker as a leader and standard bearer of his party. McCain's only hope of winning in November would be to appeal to independent voters who are looking for a strong and experienced commander-in-chief figure to be their President. And having someone like Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee doing most of the talking for McCain isn't going to impress those voters.

The town hall forums that McCain's campaign has proposed is a good idea for their candidate. As you yourself alluded to, McCain just does not possess the oratory skills and physical presence on the podium that Obama has in spades. A town hall format would be more informal and spontaneous, which could help McCain. Or it could hurt,... if McCain starts slipping up on his facts. But the town hall setting at least gives McCain a fighting chance.

Leo Lakio

June 8th, 2008, 06:20 PM

McCain just does not possess the oratory skills and physical presence on the podium that Obama has in spades.Didn't seem to matter in Bush II vs. Kerry.

Frankie's Market

June 8th, 2008, 06:33 PM

Didn't seem to matter in Bush II vs. Kerry.

Geez. If you can't recognize the stark differences in voter mood between 2004 and '08,....

Leo Lakio

June 8th, 2008, 08:00 PM

Geez. If you can't recognize the stark differences in voter mood between 2004 and '08,....Don't get your hopes up too high, FM. in 2004, Democrats foolishly assumed Bush would be easy to topple, due to all the problems to date, yet he handily won reelection without the help of the Supreme Court. Dems can't afford any complacency this round.

Frankie's Market

June 8th, 2008, 09:17 PM

Don't get your hopes up too high, FM. in 2004, Democrats foolishly assumed Bush would be easy to topple, due to all the problems to date, yet he handily won reelection without the help of the Supreme Court. Dems can't afford any complacency this round.

In November of 2004, it was 18 months since "mission accomplished" in Iraq. Crude oil was hovering at about $50 per barrel. The American economy was robust, growing at 4.4% that year. With things running relatively smoothly on the economic/domestic front, voters allowed themselves to be swayed by the Swift Boat smear campaign, which did great damage to Kerry's chances.

Fast forward to June of 2008. It is now 61 months since mission accomplished. Oil hit an all-time high of $138 a barrel last Friday, with projections that it could surpass $150 by July. The spiraling price of oil is crippling virtually every segment of the economy, especially the airlines and the auto industries. There's the subprime mortgage crisis. The number of jobs has gone down five straight months.

Under these dire circumstances, I don't think voters will fall for another Karl Rove-type orchestrated smear campaign. Forget about how close the polls say it is between Obama and McCain now. To quote former Clinton strategist James Carville, "It's the economy, stupid." The election is Obama's to lose.

Kalihiboy

June 8th, 2008, 11:50 PM

Don't get your hopes up too high, FM. in 2004, Democrats foolishly assumed Bush would be easy to topple, due to all the problems to date, yet he handily won reelection without the help of the Supreme Court. Dems can't afford any complacency this round.

I agree with the complacency statement. You never can take anything for granted. But I've always had a hard time accepting Bush won his 2004 re-election handily, yes he won the popular vote by a few million more and boasted he earned his "political capital" and was going to spend it. Let's not forget if Bush had not won the state of Ohio in 2004, John Kerry would be running for re-election right now as the incumbent president. So in theory Bush won two elections based on winning, I should say squeeking by in two states, Florida and Ohio. I won't get into the semantics and chicanery involved in those statewide elections because I think they have been talked to death by now. 1996 Clinton over Dole was the last Prez election in which the outcome was officially decided on the actual election night.

Aj

TuNnL

June 9th, 2008, 06:42 AM

More fundamental than trying to keep up with Obama in fundraising?Yes. Fundraising is a direct result of donors and PACs faith in your ability to win. If they have no faith in you, they won’t give you any money. So, in a sense, if McCain expects to catch up in fundraising, he needs to focus on improving his viability as a candidate. And that means his ability to make victory speeches like the one he made (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aMDJP4VxY4) June 3.

McCain's only hope of winning in November would be to appeal to independent voters who are looking for a strong and experienced commander-in-chief figure to be their President. And having someone like Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee doing most of the talking for McCain isn't going to impress those voters.This is irrelevant, because McCain isn’t going to get the independent vote. This year marks the strongest field for independent Presidential candidates since Ross Perot. Let’s not forget that Obama has credited the internet as the centerpiece of his fundraising and grassroots network.

The only “internet-saavy” candidate that comes close to him is Ron Paul (who even thumps Hillary Clinton in this regard). Ron Paul is still the second most popular (http://www.youtube.com/members?s=mv&t=a&g=8) candidate on Youtube, despite having less videos up then Hillary Clinton. His $5 million in a single day (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317032,00.html) fundraising effort on the internet set an all-time record. Governor Lingle and gang were so scared of him (http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?e4d35cdd-52db-42c3-87c3-ec1f22efc0b1), they censored all Ron Paul supporters at the Hawai‘i GOP Convention. As I said before, Paul will set a record for the most amount of write-in votes in American history.

Also on the ballot are Ralph Nader (Green) and Bob Barr (Libertarian). These two candidates are the liberal and conservative flanks of the traditional “independent vote.” Right now, these two are polling (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/06/poll.mccain.obama/) a combined 8% of the vote.

Leo Lakio

June 9th, 2008, 07:58 AM

voters allowed themselves to be swayed by the Swift Boat smear campaign, which did great damage to Kerry's chances. --- Under these dire circumstances, I don't think voters will fall for another Karl Rove-type orchestrated smear campaign. Forget about how close the polls say it is between Obama and McCain now. To quote former Clinton strategist James Carville, "It's the economy, stupid."There's still five months left in the campaign - plenty of time for GOP strategists to pull out all kinds of Rovian maneuvers, nastier than any we've seen to date - and don't doubt that plenty of voters WILL fall for them.

And if the rising price of oil will be the top issue in November, then Sen. McCain will have the advantage; he and Sen. Clinton are supportive of a "gas tax holiday" over the summer months, while Sen. Obama opposes it. Which plan do you think will win over voters?

timkona

June 9th, 2008, 08:18 AM

Dems are forgetting one thing......DEMographics. Remember the old saw about if your not a liberal at 20, you have no heart...if your not a conservative at 40, you have no brains. Well, the demographics of the baby boomers has been shifting to the "old" side for quite a while. And there's about 70 million of them. Thats about 1/4 of the voters in America. If Obama ignores the old folks, he's doomed. He needs to spend more time in the rest homes and less time on college campuses.

Plus, those old folks are having one identity crisis after another ie drivers license, vision, mobility, et al. They look at John McCain and see a role model of health and vigor for a 70 sumfin year old.

Last but not least, Dems suffer mightily from their fringe element. If Dems would spend some energy distancing themselves from their fringe the way Reps have tried to separate from the Christian Right, then Dems would have a much more desirable position from the point of view of centrists on the fence.

Leo Lakio

June 9th, 2008, 08:47 AM

They look at John McCain and see a role model of health and vigor for a 70 sumfin year old.Well, it's not so simple. Many Boomers still hang onto a "we can change the world" mentality from youth, and still see Sen. McCain as representing the old "establishment" structure, while Sen. Obama represents the change that they've long sought.
If Dems would spend some energy distancing themselves from their fringe the way Reps have tried to separate from the Christian Right, then Dems would have a much more desirable position from the point of view of centrists on the fence.Except that, while some of the Reps have tried to separate themselves from the Christian Right, overall the party has not been perceived as succeeding. It's ironic that Karl Rove, who is agnostic, uses the religious beliefs of evangelical Christians for political purposes.

timkona

June 9th, 2008, 02:23 PM

Democrat suffering at the hands of their liberal fringe is much greater than Republican suffering at the hands of their conservative Christian fringe.

AND.....

Republican efforts at distancing themselves from the Christian right is much greater than Democrat efforts to distance themselves from the whacko liberal crowd.

At least that's the way I see it when you look at it from a "who's making the paper's" point of view.

Ron Whitfield

June 9th, 2008, 04:47 PM

Pua'i Mana'o

June 9th, 2008, 04:52 PM

Ron you took the words right out of my mouth.

Kalihiboy

June 9th, 2008, 08:29 PM

Compared to right wing zealots, chicken hawks, racists, fake Christians, fake War Presidents, and full blown criminals that permeate the Republican party, there is no such thing as a whacko liberal crowd.
Them's fighting words to me.

The farthest of the left have thier hearts and souls in the right place, whereas their right wing counterparts have no heart or soul, and can only say they rocked way back in thier school days, to corporate classic rock of the worst kind, and even that is a lie for most of them.

I remember when Reagan would play "Pink Houses" by John Cougar Mellencamp, I think eventually he made them stop playing it because it sounds as if the singer is supporting the candidate.

John McCain has been playing "Johnny B. Goode" on the campaign trail, Chuck Berry is not endorsing him, but Obama:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080609/pl_nm/berry_dc_2

Aj

timkona

June 10th, 2008, 01:08 PM

Here's something interesting http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/06/10/is-obama-black/?icid=200100125x1203799312x1200145397

a funny thing has happened since the bad old days when people talked about race in terms of "purity." Are they talking about Hawaii?

results have shown that many more of us should be checking that "multi-racial" box on our census forms. You guys always hear me talking about how race don't matter.

are we finally heading to an acceptance of the post-racial world that our DNA has already come to acknowledge? Some folks still enjoy the old fashioned notion of racial separatism. Just ask OHA. Or Kamehameha Schools.

Vanguard

June 10th, 2008, 02:00 PM

Obama's Potential VP candidate list down to 20 (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/10/1127710.aspx)

I'm surprised to see that Richardson and Clark are not even mentioned. I'm glad to see that Sebelius made the finals though :D

timkona

June 10th, 2008, 09:37 PM

TuNnL

June 10th, 2008, 10:49 PM

Edwards is a bleeding heart liberal, Tim. You’ll have to explain his “mysterious GOP appeal.” :rolleyes:

salmoned

June 11th, 2008, 10:16 AM

Edwards is acceptable/amenable to the power structure. Elephants put more weight on that quality than Jackasses.

timkona

June 11th, 2008, 10:18 AM

Here's a brainstorm. What if McCain chooses Edwards or Lieberman or Richardson? All 3 are viewed favorably by lots of Reps. Judging by the poll numbers, McCain needs to step it up a little.

Same would be true for Obama choosing Powell, or even Schwarzeneggar (if he could). I bet there are other centrists who are right leaning that I can't think of right now.

Times are ripe for a mixed ticket.

Leo Lakio

June 11th, 2008, 11:37 AM

What if McCain chooses Edwards or Lieberman or Richardson?Lieberman would probably accept, though he might be more liability than benefit - McCain needs to shore up his GOP base, and Lieberman would be seen by many Reps as too long connected with the Demo side (having been their v.p. candidate last time out). I doubt Richardson would accept the offer. Edwards ... well, I'm not as certain.
Times are ripe for a mixed ticket.That's an interesting concept. You are right about the time being ripe - but it probably won't happen yet. A "unification" ticket would certainly have some appeal.

TuNnL

June 11th, 2008, 12:18 PM

I doubt Richardson would accept the offer. Edwards ... well, I'm not as certain.You can’t be serious, Leo! Both Richardson (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smZGgzdNyA8) and Edwards (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzkAjd3xQ7w) have publicly and passionately endorsed Barack Obama, and pledged to campaign hard for him. It would set a precedent for political suicide for either of them to even consider a McCain VP slot.

They’re smarter then that. ;)

Leo Lakio

June 11th, 2008, 01:38 PM

You can’t be serious, Leo! Both Richardson and Edwards have publicly and passionately endorsed Barack ObamaOf course they will endorse Obama - he's their party's candidate, and they used to be running against him; what else could they do? Now, I don't believe Edwards would accept such an offer, but I can imagine him giving it some consideration, if it were presented with that "unification" theme I mentioned. He's shown himself to be a liberal with a very open mind to cooperation with others - one of the reasons he was my first-choice candidate in the past two presidential contests. But McCain would have to disavow some of the GOP party-line positions he has taken in the past year, for any Democrat to take a "unification" offer seriously, and that would be a risky game - losing GOP support in exchange for Demo-leaning independent votes.

Kalihiboy

June 11th, 2008, 04:49 PM

If Obama chooses John Edwards as a running mate, a lot of Republicans will consider that a very wise decision. Very wise, indeed.

I would go so far as to say that if Edwards was the head of the ticket 4 years ago, he would reside in the White House.

As much as I like John Edwards, he carried no southern states and in fact lost his home state of North Carolina as Kerry's running mate. I think if Kerry had chosen John McCain as his running mate in 2004, Kerry might have won the White House.

Aj

Kalihiboy

June 11th, 2008, 04:53 PM

Lieberman would probably accept, though he might be more liability than benefit - McCain needs to shore up his GOP base, and Lieberman would be seen by many Reps as too long connected with the Demo side (having been their v.p. candidate last time out). I doubt Richardson would accept the offer. Edwards ... well, I'm not as certain.
That's an interesting concept. You are right about the time being ripe - but it probably won't happen yet. A "unification" ticket would certainly have some appeal.

I can see McCain considering Lieberman, however I think it's always risky to choose someone on a ticket that has previously lost.

Nixon was 4-1 on the GOP ticket as President or VP.

Aj

TuNnL

June 11th, 2008, 05:05 PM

I think if Kerry had chosen John McCain as his running mate in 2004, Kerry might have won the White House.Remember, though, that McCain’s people publicly disavowed the idea (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/10/politics/main605167.shtml), so choosing him as VP wasn’t an option. ;)

Frankie's Market

June 11th, 2008, 07:14 PM

There's still five months left in the campaign - plenty of time for GOP strategists to pull out all kinds of Rovian maneuvers, nastier than any we've seen to date - and don't doubt that plenty of voters WILL fall for them.

Oh, no doubt you will always have the gullible voters who will fall for the mudslinging. In 1988, it was the Willie Horton ads. In 2004, it was the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

But in a year with the economy in a recession and Americans fed up with the war in Iraq, I don't think voters are going to be swayed by those kinds of campaign smears. The issues are too important.

And this isn't just wishful thinking on my part. I don't know if you are aware of it, but a month ago in a special election to fill a US House seat in Mississippi, the GOP candidate in the race ran a TV commercial linking his Democratic opponent (Travis Childers) to Obama and Rev. Wright. This, at a time, when the Rev. Wright controversy was at its peak. Guess what? Childers decisively WON the election. And this, in a northern Miss. congressional district that is heavily Republican.

So yeah. If McCain and the GOP are going to use smears and attack ads as the centerpiece in their effort to win the White House, then GREAT!!! They're going to go down in defeat, just as the GOP tried in vain to mudsling against Clinton in '92. Gennifer Flowers. Avoiding the draft. Smoking ( but not inhaling) pot. As we now know, none of it worked as Clinton stormed to an easy win over H.W. Bush. With the economy mired in a recession, voting for a change in administration was a no-brainer for most voters.

So it will be for Obama this year. You guys can disagree with me if you want, of course. But come November 4th (and barring some colossal gaffe on Obama's part), you'll find that I'm right. ;)

And if the rising price of oil will be the top issue in November, then Sen. McCain will have the advantage; he and Sen. Clinton are supportive of a "gas tax holiday" over the summer months, while Sen. Obama opposes it. Which plan do you think will win over voters?

Well, the gas tax holiday proposal didn't work for Hillary in the primary. Economists universally criticized the plan and even McCain's camp won't pretend that it is a long-term solution to the energy crisis. Most voters recognized the gas tax holiday for what it was. A gimmick and political pandering, at its worst.

I agree that the candidate who provides the best answer to the question of "What will you do about rising gas prices?" will likely win the election. But if the best plan that McCain can come up with is the gas tax gimmick, he's gonna lose. Big time.

Leo Lakio

June 11th, 2008, 08:48 PM

But come November 4th (and barring some colossal gaffe on Obama's part), you'll find that I'm right. ;) I sure hope you are, you know.

sinjin

June 12th, 2008, 06:32 AM

Seems to me that given the fact that HRC had huge support in the Hispanic community, Richardson is the natural choice as VP for BHO. I'd be satisfied with that.

Vanguard

June 12th, 2008, 03:08 PM

Frankie's Market

June 12th, 2008, 07:45 PM

New potential VP name floating about: Claire McCaskill (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/12/mccaskill-interested-in-vp/)

Eh, I'd rather have her than Hillary, but I believe Kathleen Sebelius is better than both of them.

Problem with Kathleen Sebelius is,... even with her popularity in Kansas, she's not likely to put her home state into play for Obama. Kansas has historically been a red state. In the last 68 years, they have only voted for the Democratic candidate for President ONCE, that being in 1964.

Missouri Senator McCaskill, OTOH, comes from a swing state.

TuNnL

June 12th, 2008, 08:15 PM

Switching gears to the Republican side, lone holdout Ron Paul (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,317032,00.html), the last Republican candidate still in the race against John McCain finally suspended (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/us/politics/p13paul.html) his campaign today. However, not only did he not endorse John McCain, he re-iterated his promise to hold a separate convention (http://newsroom.mtv.com/2008/06/12/ron-paul-to-gop-fine-ill-throw-my-own-convention/) in the same city as the Republican National Convention on the same day. In his campaign closing speech in Texas, he announced the “second phase” of the Ron Paul Revolution: funding the campaigns of Paul-philosophy candidates nationwide in any party using the $4.7 million remaining in his campaign warchest. :eek:

Get ready for an interesting election here in Hawai‘i! If you note the latest candidate declaration (http://hawaii.gov/elections/candidates/reports/candidate_report.pdf) sheet, many of Ron Paul’s Hawai‘i campaign staff who attended the controversial Hawai‘i GOP Convention this year, are running for office! With Paul’s financial backing, some veteran incumbents in the legislature may get a run for their money! :cool:

timkona

June 17th, 2008, 08:42 AM

This just in from an AOL newsite poll.

Who will you vote for in November?
John McCain 54%
Barack Obama 37%
Other or undecided 6%
I'm not going to vote 3%

And yet, the lib media wants you to believe that Obama has a slim lead. Spin Spin Spin

sinjin

June 17th, 2008, 08:53 AM

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm
http://www.presidentpolls2008.com/
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/general_election_match_up_history

Rinse. Repeat.

timkona

June 17th, 2008, 08:58 AM

Experience will be the deciding factor. imho.

sinjin

June 17th, 2008, 09:12 AM

Experience will be the deciding factor. imho.Let's hope so:

Here's McCain's past in a nutshell:

Grew up in a prominent rightwing Navy family and was indoctrinated in naval dominance of the globe.

Went to Annapolis and ranked at the very bottom of his class because he resented authority.

Went to Vietnam and crashed several planes.

Spent 6 years as a POW and "broke" under torture.

Came home and dumped the wife who raised his children while he was away and nursed him back to health on his return.

Married a much younger woman who was heir to a mobbed-up Budweiser fortune.

Worked in his in-laws' business traveling across Arizona building a base for his political career.

Used his in-laws' money to get elected to the House as an anti-abortion, "pro-family" candidate.

Worked his way up from the House to the Senate by being a loyal right-wing Republican.

As a Senator, got caught helping Charles Keating deregulate S&L's, which cost taxpayers $200 billion, and was censured by the Senate.
Promised never to do favors for lobbyists again.

Ran for President in 2000 as a reformer and won New Hampshire.

Got crushed in South Carolina after he called Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell "agents of intolerance" and they fired back with a pro-Bush smear campaign that McCain had an "illegitimate black child" - actually a dark-skinned child (Bridget) adopted from impoverished Bangladesh. Nevertheless, McCain enthusiastically supported Bush both in 2000 and 2004.

In 2001, he opposed Bush's $1.35 trillion tax giveaway to the rich, but changed his position during the 2007 campaign.

In 2001, he was so opposed to Bush's far-right policies that he considered becoming a Democrat, but ultimately stayed a Republican and supported Bush's far-right policies.

In 2002, he was a leading advocate for the invasion of Iraq, spent far more time on TV than any other Senator, and wrongly predicted "victory" and "success" every step of the way.

In 2004, he betrayed his friend John Kerry by refusing to defend him against Swift Boat smears.

In 2007, when a supporter asked "How do we beat the bitch," referring to Sen. Hillary Clinton, McCain laughed and called it an "excellent question."

In 2007, with the U.S. on the brink of attacking Iran, McCain joked by singing "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran."

In 2008, when caught doing favors for lobbyist Vicki Iseman and her corporate clients, lied about his actions.
http://www.democrats.com/mccains-experience

SusieMisajon

June 17th, 2008, 11:39 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Euu_DMhsXQo

Don't click if you don't like bad words.

TuNnL

June 17th, 2008, 12:12 PM

There are some women, feminists in fact, who would argue (http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2000/11/11-17-00tdc/11-17-00dnews-4.asp) that “cunt” is not a bad word. :eek:

Frankie's Market

June 17th, 2008, 11:11 PM

Yet another flip-flop from McCain. In his presidential run in 2000, GOP "maverick" McCain broke ranks with much of his party in opposing any rollback of the moratorium placed on domestic offshore oil drilling. Today, he now supports lifting the moratorium, leaving it to each coastal state to decide.

So much for being the "environmental" candidate. I guess McCain is hoping that support for this proposal will win him support from among those who think that more domestic drilling will ease gas prices. But it's a double-edged sword for him. Offshore drilling rigs are like prisons. People may like their benefits,.... but not if it is placed in their own backyard. To be sure, this proposal all but sinks any chance McCain had of winning in California (which was a long shot to begin with). But what the GOP needs to be worried about is the impact this will have in Florida, which will be a key battleground state. Even with Gov. Charlie Crist's support, I can imagine a lot of Floridians will be up in arms about this and it could very well be the single issue which will decide the vote in the Sunshine State.

Ron Whitfield

June 18th, 2008, 09:18 AM

...that he, of all people, now supports torture.

Wadda guy.

timkona

June 19th, 2008, 09:13 AM

TuNnL

June 19th, 2008, 10:46 AM

http://news.aol.com/elections/story/_a/muslim-women-rejected-at-obama-rally/20080618155909990001?icid=200100125x1204369139x120 0183577

The PC, liberal media just continues to hammer away at Obama in true Democrat suicidal fashion.First of all, if you ask any media whether it be MSNBC or Fox News, they will tell you they are trying to be as politically correct as possible. This is just good form, because in straight news reporting, it eliminates the distractions that politically incorrectness bring by coloring and tarring their content in the eyes of the readers, viewers and listeners.

Secondly, it is not the job of the media to take the side of any candidate, sports team, corporate entity, or any other issue subject for debate. If Obama or his campaign do something good, they report it. If they do something bad, they report it.

In this particular situation, these women who felt “slighted” by the Obama campaign, likely approached a journalist with their story. Any reporter is looking for a story, and wouldn’t turn one down unless it was untrue. Therefore, the media is simply doing its job by reporting this incident. The important thing is, they got both sides of the dispute. Fair and balanced.

I might add, that the last two stories in which you included a link were both from “AOL News.” Whether or not you think its a good source, you are also guilty of coloring your views by relying on a single source, instead of the diversity that exists throughout the media spectrum, providing important checks, balances, and viewpoints to make you a more informed consumer of news. ;)

Frankie's Market

June 19th, 2008, 10:52 PM

TuNnL

June 20th, 2008, 12:01 AM

First of all, if you ask any media whether it be MSNBC or Fox News, they will tell you they are trying to be as politically correct as possible. This is just good form, because in straight news reporting, it eliminates the distractions that politically incorrectness bring by coloring and tarring their content in the eyes of the readers, viewers and listeners.

Secondly, it is not the job of the media to take the side of any candidate, sports team, corporate entity, or any other issue subject for debate. If Obama or his campaign do something good, they report it. If they do something bad, they report it.
What you say sounds idealistic. But what is the reality?

I'm not against the idea of radio/TV commentary shows, whether they lean to the left (Countdown w/ Keith Olbermann) or the right (Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly). But what really gets under my skin are the programs and segments that try to pass themselves off as being balanced and bi-partisan, but aren't. FOX news' so-called "All-Star Panel" (Fred Barnes, Charles Krauthammer, Mort Kondrake) are all so unbelieveably biased against Obama, it's laughable. But there are people out there who are gullible and think that all their right-wing propaganda is equivalent to fair coverage and commentary on the events of the day.

At least on CNN (Situation Room, Anderson Cooper 360) and MSNBC (Verdict w/ Dan Abrams, Hardball), a serious effort is made to bring in Republican and Democratic voices to the debates and discussion.First of all, nothing you have cited qualifies in my definition of straight news. All of these are either commentary, debates, or panel discussions. Straight news means a reporter went out into the field, interviewed both (or multiple) sides of a story, edited into a 2-minute package, and aired it. It also means an anchor reading factual copy (voiceover) while video from the scene and interviews run on the screen. Either way, there is no opinion, debate or discussion. Just the facts.

This is generally what you see on programs like the CBS Evening News, KITV4 Island Television News at 6pm, or CNN Headline News, for example. Occasionally (such as Election season), they may include the elements you have cited. But generally, they stick to straight news. ;)

Leo Lakio

June 20th, 2008, 07:24 AM

Guess it all depends on your perspective (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/horsey/viewbydate.asp?id=1777).

Frankie's Market

June 21st, 2008, 06:41 PM

First of all, nothing you have cited qualifies in my definition of straight news. All of these are either commentary, debates, or panel discussions. Straight news means a reporter went out into the field, interviewed both (or multiple) sides of a story, edited into a 2-minute package, and aired it. It also means an anchor reading factual copy (voiceover) while video from the scene and interviews run on the screen. Either way, there is no opinion, debate or discussion. Just the facts.

Me thinks you need to more carefully examine what you consider to be "straight newscasts."

It doesn't matter whether it's a local or national. Virtually every newscast gives you opinion, analysis, and speculation along with the facts in almost every story covered. Do you need to have the station/network in question to flash the graphic "educated speculation" every time a reporter says something that is likely to happen in the future but has not, in fact, yet happened. Do you need to have the reporter qualify every statement that is made?

What self-respecting sportscaster would only report "the facts" after a big game? That would mean only telling viewers the score, statistics, and the box score. Almost every major sports story contains reporter's observations on the strategy and tactics they think led to the final score. But as educated as those observations may be, it is not strictly factual.

Even the choice of what stories a network chooses to cover and NOT cover could be a reflection of that particular news outlet's biases and editorial stance.

Straight news? Just the facts? Sez you.

TuNnL

June 21st, 2008, 07:55 PM

Me thinks you need to more carefully examine what you consider to be "straight newscasts."So what would you consider straight news? My definition is fairly close to the textbook definition. You haven’t given one.

Virtually every newscast gives you opinion, analysis, and speculation along with the facts in almost every story covered.I would strongly disagree with this. I would say this observation describes the exception to the rule. Virtually every newscast? Not even close.

Do you need to have the reporter qualify every statement that is made? Yes. And they do. Usually they start or finish by saying “authorities say, according to experts, sources confirm, etc...”

What self-respecting sportscaster ...Hey, we’re talking about news, here. Ever notice when Liz reports a serious story about the UH basketball coach being hospitalized, etc. she signs off “Liz Chun, KGMB9 News” as opposed to her usual “KGMB9 Sports”? Do you also recognize that this story appears in the news block, and not the sports block? Let’s critique the appropriate section of the show, as I’m sure we can agree they are clearly divided.

Even the choice of what stories a network chooses to cover and NOT cover could be a reflection of that particular news outlet's biases and editorial stance.I’ll give you this one. This is a fair criticism. But also in fairness, let’s not forget that these stations may simply choose not to cover something in the interest of time, lack of resources, personnel, on the advice of ratings consultants, etc.

Frankie's Market

June 22nd, 2008, 05:32 PM

Even the choice of what stories a network chooses to cover and NOT cover could be a reflection of that particular news outlet's biases and editorial stance.

I’ll give you this one. This is a fair criticism. But also in fairness, let’s not forget that these stations may simply choose not to cover something in the interest of time, lack of resources, personnel, on the advice of ratings consultants, etc.

Your statement is very true. And also, an unnecessary one. Guess my qualifier (the word could) slipped under your radar.

Shows to me that you've got a ways to go before you can act like a media watchdog.

timkona

June 23rd, 2008, 09:17 AM

http://www.propeller.com/viewstory/2008/06/23/obama-braces-for-race-based-ads/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.msnbc.msn.com%2Fid%2F2532555 0%2F&frame=true

This story makes me exactly as angry as anything OHA, Kau Inoa, or Kam Schools does concerning race.

Dang, I hate racism. Humans are humans. Your egomania is no longer amusing. Get over it.

Leo Lakio

June 23rd, 2008, 09:36 AM

Dang, I hate racism. Humans are humans. Your egomania is no longer amusing. Get over it.Shameful indeed. Besides, simply calling Sen. Obama "black" ignores his mother's side of the equation. Just shows the increasing irrelevance of judgement by labels.

Kalalau

June 23rd, 2008, 09:36 AM

But the Republicans HAVE to play to peoples' lowest, most base, evil emotions. You can't talk to their intellects--what, you're going to tell them you want to re-install the economic system that caused the last Great Depression? You can't talk to any sense of actual Christian or Moslem or Jewish or Bhuddist mercy or kindness that they may have picked up in their lives--how could that possibly sell wars of aggression to steal other peoples' property? No, you appeal to their short sighted greed, to their fear, to their hatred. That way, the puppet masters on top can continue looting the country. In 2004 they told the simple people of Ohio that Kerry would take away their Bibles, and they bought it. Historically, Americans cannot think their way out of problems, they muddle into disasters because they are deliberately misled by various interests, and occasionally they are lucky enough to stumble into a good leader who actually improves things. Would the country be better off if the Great Communicator (think about what that name actually means) had kept the unpopular Jimmy Carter's program of energy independence? Obviously. But the puppet masters wanted to sell their oil and the rest is history.

Leo Lakio

June 23rd, 2008, 09:44 AM

But the Republicans HAVE to ...The flaw in this argument is to assign such behavior to all Republicans. There are members of the GOP who repudiate such base political tactics.

timkona

June 23rd, 2008, 12:24 PM

It would be fair to say that racism exists on all sides of the coin.

You got the conservatives and their old school racism, ignorant bigotry.
You got the liberals and their new school racism, aff. action.
You got ethnocentric egomania here in Hawaii, Kam Schools etc.

It's everywhere you look. And it bugs me to no end. Give Obama his fair shake regardless of color, and McCain his fair shake regardless of age.

timkona

June 23rd, 2008, 09:49 PM

I should just change my name to "Threadstopper."

Pua'i Mana'o

June 23rd, 2008, 10:44 PM

Tim, fwiw, I agree with everything you had said about all sides of the coin and giving candidates a fair shake.

timkona

June 25th, 2008, 09:45 AM

From an AOL poll.

Who would you choose for president in this head-to-head matchup?
John McCain 53%
Barack Obama 40%
Neither/undecided 7%

Total Votes: 254,563

CNN and LA Times say that BO has a double digit lead. This poll says the opposite. What gives?

Leo Lakio

June 25th, 2008, 10:49 AM

CNN and LA Times say that BO has a double digit lead. This poll says the opposite. What gives?Ummm...Tim? Polls are worthless crap in today's world. Anyone can get polls that represent whatever perspective they want them to reflect. You will also get very disparate responses when you compare "scientific" polls vs. "open" ones.

Does anyone actually base their real vote on what a poll has said? Unless most people do, there's only one poll that will matter at all - and that doesn't take place until November 4.

Vanguard

June 25th, 2008, 12:58 PM

CNN and LA Times say that BO has a double digit lead. This poll says the opposite. What gives?

OMG Bradley Effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Effect)!

TuNnL

June 25th, 2008, 04:42 PM

Barack Obama shocked many critics today, by declaring that he supports the death penalty (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iUxLyuaYbgY6v9Li7_Lunlk5vm4gD91HDIMG0) for individuals who rape children. His opinion goes against the U.S. Supreme Court which ruled that such a penalty is “cruel and unusual punishment” for the rapist.

I would really like to shake Obama’s hand for dispelling the myth that he is a “left-leaning liberal” in every way! It’s great that he has taken a conservative position on the death penalty, which I think should be used on much more regular basis as a deterrent against crime.

Ron Whitfield

June 25th, 2008, 08:11 PM

I'll be voting for BO, but that statement of support for the death penalty, especially in this matter is totally absurd. The court managed to get another one right. What a rarity.

Frankie's Market

June 25th, 2008, 08:35 PM

Ummm...Tim? Polls are worthless crap in today's world.

It's a tired old cliche for the candidates and their surrogates. "This poll is 5 months away from the election. It's worthless." "Polls are nothing more than a snapshot in time."

But top-notch pollsters are worth their weight in gold to candidates and the parties. Failing to consider any kind of polling data when it comes to spending/advertising decisions would be disastrous for almost any campaign.

TuNnL

June 25th, 2008, 09:47 PM

I'll be voting for BO, but that statement of support for the death penalty, especially in this matter is totally absurd. The court managed to get another one right.I would really like to understand what you find so absurd about Barack Obama’s statement (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/25/AR2008062502309.html). He’s expressing a reasoned view that in the most heinous of child rape cases, prosecutors should be allowed to seek the death penalty. CBS News does an insightful report (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYmNxvrH3CQ) that explains why today’s Supreme Court decision is likely to weaken our laws across the board. Sad. :(

Frankie's Market

June 25th, 2008, 10:36 PM

He’s expressing a reasoned view that in the most heinous of child rape cases, prosecutors should be allowed to seek the death penalty. CBS News does an insightful report (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYmNxvrH3CQ) that explains why today’s Supreme Court decision is likely to weaken our laws across the board. Sad. :(

Let me pose this question to you. If a 17 year old boy is found guilty of raping a 13 year old girl, should the boy receive a death sentence?

TuNnL

June 25th, 2008, 11:56 PM

Let me pose this question to you. If a 17 year old boy is found guilty of raping a 13 year old girl, should the boy receive a death sentence?It’s impossible to answer the question you pose because you have provided none of the circumstances in your theoretical scenario. In any event, it would be irrelevant in this case (Kennedy vs. Louisiana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_v._Louisiana)) because the provision of the Louisiana law the Supreme Court struck down applied only to “children under the age of 13.”

If you read Obama’s statement, he specifically says the penalty should be available when the victim is “six or eight years old.” The Louisiana case that precipitated this ruling involved Patrick Kennedy, who raped his 8-year-old (http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/15/rape.execution/index.html) stepdaughter, then told her to lie about it to police. Investigators only discovered the truth after finding blood in the girl’s bedroom that Kennedy was trying to have removed. This young girl will likely live with feelings of guilt, betrayal, shame, disgust, denial, an extreme hatred for her father, and an inability to trust people — particularly men in authority positions — for the rest of her life. That’s if she doesn’t commit suicide as victims in these types of cases often do.

If the death penalty is available to prosecutors, it doesn’t necessarily mean that they will seek to use it in every child rape case. Maybe in the scenario you outlined, they might not. Again, it depends on the circumstances. In fact, many states, like Hawai‘i, do not allow the death penalty for any crimes. Of the states with the death penalty, less than a handful extended the penalty to child rape. The frequency of the crime historically has been low, experts say, because of the young victim’s fear of repercussions for reporting the crime, and the belief (often instilled by the perpetrator) that they are somehow to blame. Now that the Supreme Court has come out with very specific language that would seem to limit the death penalty to murder and attempted murder convictions, they’ve sent a very strong message: Child rapists, regardless of how many adolescent teens, young children, toddlers and infants they have assaulted, will always live to see another day. :(

Frankie's Market

June 26th, 2008, 01:10 AM

It’s impossible to answer the question you pose because you have provided none of the circumstances in your theoretical scenario.

Fine. Then just change the age of the girl in my scenario. I ask you again. Should a 17 year old boy receive the death sentence for raping an 11 year old girl?

And no, I'm not talking about a law whereby every offender in this situation gets the death sentence. Should any state in our country have the option of having a convicted rapist (who happens to be a minor) get a death sentence? Would you personally be okay with a minor being put on death row?

I'm not here to condemn or condone. I'm just curious what you think.

Kalalau

June 26th, 2008, 04:28 AM

I used to support the death penalty, then Illinois discovered that a third of the people sentenced to death in their state were innocent of the charges they'd been convicted on. That is just a totally unsatisfactory failure rate. In Cal. a fellow had served 28 years for raping a child and evidence came up also proving him factually innocent. Think of the person you love most in the world and imagine that happening to him or her. Whoever it happens to is just as much a human being as your beloved. It is absolutely, totally unacceptable.

Beyond the problem of accuracy, the death penalty pushes the wrong buttons. It says very clearly that settling scores by killing people is OK. If the supreme authority, the state itself, kills people to settle with them, it sets an example of acceptable conduct. The way to show we do not approve of killing people is...to not kill them. It also stimulates that most dangerous animal instinct, blood lust, vengeance, killing for emotional satisfaction. This is why countries and states that do not have the death penalty have lower rates of violent crime than those that do. And finally, isn't the power of life and death just too much power to trust Big Government with? When has absolute power not been abused? Keep that power away from the bureaucrats and grand standing politicians and corrupt judges.

I admit that the death penalty has its emotional appeal. Thats the problem.

Ron Whitfield

June 26th, 2008, 07:35 AM

I don't agree with State sactioned murder.
Overzealous/corrupt prosecutors, bad evidence and bad cops can set up an innocent person easily, and there's no reversing death.

Kalalau's post was right on!

Leo Lakio

June 26th, 2008, 07:50 AM

I'm in the same arena as Ron & Kalalau. As I have stated in previous HT threads, I am against state-sanctioned killing in any circumstance, no matter how heinous and horrifying the crime.
But top-notch pollsters are worth their weight in gold to candidates and the parties.Only because that's the old-school way of gathering data. The dynamic has already changed; people lie comfortably to pollsters, and use of the internet has changed the interaction with polling subjects.

timkona

June 26th, 2008, 08:26 AM

I, too, am against the death penalty. The reasons Kalalau states are valid, and the "mistake" rate can be high. Perhaps the accusers should be made subject to the same rules such that they are certain not to lie in the courtroom.

But my main argument against the death penalty goes something like this. Death is a punishment only to those with some sense of religion. Death certainly removes the problem from society, but it cannot possibly be perceived as a punishment by the living, because we really don't have enough information to actually know what happens on the other side. Therefore, death as a crime deterrent is ethereal, or even theoretic, at best. Perhaps nothing happens, and you don't remember it.

A small hammer, large rock, hot sun, and little to eat or drink would be a good example of a punsishment. So would a cell with Bubba.

Random

June 26th, 2008, 11:02 AM

When it comes to murder, death penalty could be considered.

When it comes to rape, I could think of other heinous punishments but our "lawful" society forbids cruel & unusual punishment. The convicted will live but he will wish for a merciful death penalty after the suffering he'll endure for his natural lives.

I have to take BO's statement with a grain of salt (and salt is bad for me). It plays more on society's emotion than on society's conscience. I think in his case, he spoke as a father. What father would say no to the death penalty when it comes to his own children (unless you're the father of the rapist, not the victim).

TuNnL

June 26th, 2008, 01:07 PM

I ask you again. Should a 17 year old boy receive the death sentence for raping an 11 year old girl?As I said before, it is impossible to answer the question you pose, because you have provided none of the circumstances surrounding your theoretical scenario. Let me help you along, since you seem to be having trouble with this request...

What is the relationship of the boy to the girl? Do the boy and the victim know each other? How? Are/were they boyfriend and girlfriend? Were there other crimes associated with the rape? (i.e. kidnapping, terroristic threatening, assault with a deadly weapon, etc.) What was the verdict on those crimes? Does the boy have a clean record? If not, were his other convictions rape crimes? How did police learn of the rape?

The answers to these questions are what most investigators would describe as “circumstances.” This is what I had asked you to provide, which would allow me to express an informed opinion on whether or not the prosecutor should be allowed to seek the death penalty. I am assuming that your theoretical scenario took place in a state that allows such punishment for such a crime.

Ron Whitfield

June 26th, 2008, 04:21 PM

It doesn't matter what the victim's age, the crime, various circumstances, emotional traumas, or whatever, the fact is that the death penalty is not acceptable behavior if we consider ourselves a decent society. Most all of us would LOVE to dispatch our worst actions upon the worst criminals, but that would make us at least as bad as them.

And I've never understood wishing that 'they get theirs' while in prison, even tho I've felt it as well. They get their sentence and serve it, and should have the rights and abilities to do so without even the fear of rape, beating, or murder. This hasn't been the case for virtually all of US incareration history, and the penal system is way out of wack. Unfortunately, the courts get it wrong in both directions all to often, maybe usually, but it's up to us to get it corrected, and it don't look like that will happen in my lifetime.

Sprite

June 26th, 2008, 05:32 PM

I used to believe in the death penalty. I just have a problem when coming face to face with it. The movie, Dead Man Walking, with Sean Penn, bothered me for days.

I can say that I agree to "other" punishments for some even lesser crimes. I have gone so far as to say neutering without anesthetics on the way to prison. :eek: (Sorry gents -- don't wince, I would probably recant after chilling out a little.)

However, I agree with the other person who said Obama was talking like a father. If I were a parent in such a situation, I don't know if I would ever find the strength of character to want anything less than torturous pain for the perpetrator. Maternal instincts are strong even when you don't have any of your own. We can try to be forgiving, but not when you hurt our babies!

Random

June 26th, 2008, 05:42 PM

I can say that I agree to "other" punishments for some even lesser crimes. I have gone so far as to say neutering without anesthetics on the way to prison. :eek: (Sorry gents -- don't wince, I would probably recant after chilling out a little.)
Meh. We may have instinctively crossed our legs but if the guy deserves it, he deserves to lose his manhood for acting less of a man to the opposite sex.

However, I agree with the other person who said Obama was talking like a father. If I were a parent in such a situation, I don't know if I would ever find the strength of character to want anything less than torturous pain for the perpetrator. Maternal instincts are strong even when you don't have any of your own. We can try to be forgiving, but not when you hurt our babies!
Not to get all preachy, but that is where the true power of forgiveness lie. To forgive someone who doesn't deserve it, even a sadistic rapist. It's a friggin' paradox.

Then again, we're all imperfect humans...

Sprite

June 26th, 2008, 06:08 PM

Point taken, Random. It's hard to forgive sometimes. "Forgiveness is Divine!" It is what we should aim for. Sigh.

For the record, I wasn't referring to rape when I said "lesser" crime. I don't think rape is a 'lesser" crime but I'm also not a woman who cries wolf and sexual harassment at the drop of a hat. Definitely a case by case kind of thing!

Thanks for being preachy (even though you weren't)... it's refreshing and heart warming!

Hugs!

Frankie's Market

June 26th, 2008, 07:13 PM

As I said before, it is impossible to answer the question you pose, because you have provided none of the circumstances surrounding your theoretical scenario. Let me help you along, since you seem to be having trouble with this request...

You think I'm having some sort of "trouble" in this thread. Actually no. I'm trying to lead up to another question here, which we will get to in a moment.

What is the relationship of the boy to the girl? Do the boy and the victim know each other? How? Are/were they boyfriend and girlfriend? Were there other crimes associated with the rape? (i.e. kidnapping, terroristic threatening, assault with a deadly weapon, etc.) What was the verdict on those crimes? Does the boy have a clean record? If not, were his other convictions rape crimes? How did police learn of the rape?

The answers to these questions are what most investigators would describe as “circumstances.” This is what I had asked you to provide, which would allow me to express an informed opinion on whether or not the prosecutor should be allowed to seek the death penalty. I am assuming that your theoretical scenario took place in a state that allows such punishment for such a crime.

All very reasonable-sounding points you make. Lots of circumstances to consider.

Now let me ask you this. Are you saying that, under all the proper circumstances, a minor who is convicted of child rape should be subject to the possibility of receiving a death sentence? If so, then let me also ask you this.

Do you think that the possibility for a minor being put on death row for committing child rape should exist when at this point, there is currently no law existing for a minor to receive capital punishment for murder, under any circumstances?

Just my opinion, but that doesn't make any sense.

TuNnL

June 26th, 2008, 08:28 PM

let me ask you this. Are you saying that, under all the proper circumstances, a minor who is convicted of child rape should be subject to the possibility of receiving a death sentence?That would depend on what your definition of a minor is. Let’s take your 17 year-old, for example. What if he turned 18 the day authorities caught him, but he hadn’t touched the 11-year-old girl that day? What if the girl didn’t know him? What if he bashed her head in with a baseball bat in order to kidnap her and chained her in the basement of an abandoned home? What if he forcibly raped and sodomized her five times a day for a period of 16 weeks, tortured her, and barely fed her until she had third-degree burns and was near death before authorities finally found him? What if had already served time in juvenile detention for rape, had raped in inmate while in juvie, was released and was already wanted for violating parole?

Here in Hawai‘i, we have already tried several minors as adults, due to the heinousness of the crimes they committed. We also have two minors (one who raped another inmate in juvenile detention) on trial for murder (http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080608/NEWS20/806080364) of a good samaritan in Waikīkī. The victim was only trying to help another man that the pair were allegedly beating the crap out of when he tried to stop them from allegedly robbing his companion.

So to answer your question, if, and only if, we’re talking about the minor in the scenario I have outlined for you, then yes, I would favor allowing the prosecutor to seek the death penalty in a jurisdiction that allowed it, because the prosecutor can try this individual as an adult, should the judge in the case grant a motion to do so.

We need to start putting a value on public safety, which isn’t served by giving the most vile criminals three hots and a cot and medical care at taxpayer’s expense. :mad:

Leo Lakio

June 26th, 2008, 08:49 PM

This has taken a very non-Presidential spin*, hasn't it?

(* = see thread title)

Leo Lakio

June 27th, 2008, 07:35 AM

Give ... McCain his fair shake regardless of age.Funny to read that statement, coming from a man who has repeatedly posted his own negative generalizations and judgements about an entire group of Americans whose only commonality is their age.
Examples here... (http://www.hawaiithreads.com/showpost.php?p=69219)
...and here... (http://www.hawaiithreads.com/showpost.php?p=177374)
...and here... (http://www.hawaiithreads.com/showpost.php?p=160088)
...and here... (http://www.hawaiithreads.com/showpost.php?p=147839)
...and here... (http://www.hawaiithreads.com/showpost.php?p=129649)
...and here... (http://www.hawaiithreads.com/showpost.php?p=120709)
...and here... (http://www.hawaiithreads.com/showpost.php?p=62949)
...and here. (http://www.hawaiithreads.com/showpost.php?p=60899)
(There are plenty more postings in this vein.)

Sorry, Tim, but your admonition rings hollow.

Random

June 27th, 2008, 02:19 PM

This has taken a very non-Presidential spin*, hasn't it?

(* = see thread title)
Granted, we have gotten off-track but it cannot be ignored when Presidential Candidate BO made that remark.

Nevertheless, it is best to move on. Further discussion regarding death penalty on rape crime -- regardless if the convicted perpetrator is male or female ... LeTourneau comes to mind -- should be in another thread.

Vanguard

June 29th, 2008, 04:16 AM

Obama supporters take middle name "Hussein" as their own (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/us/politics/29hussein.html?_r=3&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1214744822-lFklLuq0Psie7nWbG7K8zQ)

Leo Lakio

July 2nd, 2008, 11:54 AM

Ron Whitfield

July 2nd, 2008, 12:46 PM

John Edwards would have been better, and he was a proven loser.

Frankie's Market

July 2nd, 2008, 07:18 PM

Latest name being bandied about for Obama as VP choice: Rep. Gephardt (http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/campaign-2008/2008/07/01/gop-envisions-gephardt-as-possible-obama-running-mate.html).
GOP strategists say they "fear him most."

Gephardt is an "okay" choice. His home state (Missouri) is a swing state and I think he would be just as helpful as either Kansas Gov. Sebellius and Missouri Sen. McCaskill in drumming up support in the midwest. Would be helpful to Obama's campaign when it comes to economic issues. But because of all the lobbying that he has done over the last 3 years, Gephardt would have to be vetted very closely as a potential VP candidate.

When you look at the polls, Obama seems to lead McCain in every issue,.... except for national security and foreign policy. No doubt this is the reason why Joe Biden and Sam Nunn's names keep surfacing in the veepstakes.

Besides their expertise in foreign policy, both of these senators bring other things to the ticket. Nunn would potentially put Georgia into play for the Democrats. (A potential that could turn very real if Libertarian candidate and former GOP congressman Bob Barr takes away enough votes from McCain.) Biden would help to court the Catholic vote, which is a demographic that is presently leaning towards McCain.

timkona

July 2nd, 2008, 09:33 PM

Ay yai yai. Hope. Pray. Wish. Think. Dream. Want. Believe. Pretend.

McCain will win with Huckabee, Giulani, Powell, Rice, or Bullwinkle Moose as the VP. The only loser Rep. is Romney due to the whole Mormon thing which is exactly as bad as the whole Islam thing.

Man I am in a pi$$ of a mood right now. Do not start with me.

Ron Whitfield

July 3rd, 2008, 09:35 AM

I would love to see any of those lead weights you mentioned on a McCave ticket. Romney would be his best shot at this point. And, unless Obama continues to espouse willingness to embrace total crap like warrantless/illegal wiretapping of Americans, this will be a non-race.

TuNnL

July 3rd, 2008, 10:52 AM

McCain will win with Huckabee, Giulani, Powell, Rice, or Bullwinkle Moose as the VP. The only loser Rep. is Romney due to the whole Mormon thing which is exactly as bad as the whole Islam thing.I have to agree with Whitfield (for once) on this one. Do you really believe John McCain has a chance when so far you've only been able to find a single poll with McCain leading?

Think about what you just wrote. Huckabee and Giuliani. These two are polar opposites! One is a right-wing conservative preacher with a questionable record (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22006504/) as governor who jokes about Obama being shot, while the other is a mob-tied cross-dressing liberal Republican (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/15/thompson.giuliani.ap/) caught cheating on his wife, who politicized the 9/11 attacks!

So you tell me, which one of these candidates could possibly dig McCain out of the hole he is in? :rolleyes:

Ron Whitfield

July 7th, 2008, 04:34 PM

Jim Webb said today he will not be a consideration for the Obama as VP.

Wesley Clark talked himself out of the possibility last week.

So, the list of strong candidates is shrinking to where Hillary may be the only viable choice left, unless Sam Nunn is up for it.

Leo Lakio

July 7th, 2008, 09:02 PM

So, the list of strong candidates is shrinking to where Hillary may be the only viable choice left, unless Sam Nunn is up for it.I can see her "campaign" slogan for this role --- "It's a job for Hillary ... or Nunn."

timkona

July 8th, 2008, 07:54 PM

Shoots Leo ROTFLMFAO.........bwahahah...howl howl....laughter.... :D:eek::rolleyes:

usocrazee....smottoou

Walkoff Balk

July 8th, 2008, 08:02 PM

I can see her "campaign" slogan for this role --- "It's a job for Hillary ... or Nunn."

If the Hillary Will Not Come to Obama. Obama Will Go to the Hillary.

Frankie's Market

July 8th, 2008, 08:36 PM

Going to the Republican side of the Veepstakes for a moment:

One person who has been talked up in GOP circles as a possible running mate for McCain is Carly Fiorina, the former HP CEO. She certainly has the business/economic credentials that McCain lacks. No doubt she would also appeal to those who want to see a woman on the ticket.

But, but,...... she has no political experience. With McCain's age (71) being a nagging issue, voters may be wary about a political newcomer being a "heartbeat away" from the Presidency.

Another female candidate getting some support is Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. A former Miss Alaska contestant, she would bring some youth (44) to the ticket. But then again, if McCain has to worry about keeping Alaska in the GOP column in this year's election, then he might as well give up right now.

TuNnL

July 9th, 2008, 04:13 AM

Wesley Clark talked himself out of the possibility last week.I would disagree with that assessment. Personally, I think Clark was wise to stand his ground, considering his statement (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kcBg72mM5U) on McCain’s service was right on the money. True, it wasn’t politically correct, but it was undeniably accurate. McCain has no answer for it.

So, the list of strong candidates is shrinking to where Hillary may be the only viable choice leftHere again, I think you’re jumping the gun. Besides Sam Nunn, let’s not forget Bill Richardson (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y62jhStuawA), who could galvanize the Hispanic vote. His stellar record as U.S. representative, United Nations ambassador, Secretary of Energy and Governor of New Mexico, puts McCain to shame. With him as VP, Obama wins the border states and Florida, as well as picking up a solidly capable stand-in. ;)

sinjin

July 9th, 2008, 06:43 AM

..let’s not forget Bill Richardson, who could galvanize the Hispanic vote. His stellar record as U.S. representative, United Nations ambassador, Secretary of Energy and Governor of New Mexico, puts McCain to shame. With him as VP, Obama wins the border states and Florida, as well as picking up a solidly capable stand-in. ;)Dead on. I've predicted this since Hillary dropped out. I hope he's not to attached to that beard he's been sportin' on and off lately.

Ron Whitfield

July 9th, 2008, 10:33 AM

I had Richardson firmly in mind when I stated this. To me he doesn't have enuf punch to stay in a real political dogfight or that he could hang tuff under fire when things get really ugly during the next few years which it most certainly will, even tho I think he's a good man and would be a fine member of BO's cabinet.

On Clark; I have no problem with what he said, and in fact, I say the same. But, BO is trying a bit too hard lately to appease all sides, and needs to go back to taking on his critics with hard and direct answers instead of trying to dance thru the mine field and make everybody happy, which he'll never do.
So, I thing BO has penciled his name out of the running for VP.
I'm not sold on Clark as a heavy hitter in American politics anyway.

timkona

July 9th, 2008, 08:15 PM

TuNnL's second paragraph is spot on.

Sinjin, let Bill have the beard.

Sometimes I have one too. Then I shave. Then it grows. Then I shave it again. Then I make it a goatee. Then chopburns, like Elvis in the heydey of pills. Then a mustache. And then I shave it again, along with my head, then my neck, and sometimes other places. My hair grows as good as Gov. Richardson's. You hairless people are strange to me. I just don't get it. Maybe it's like being Hawaiian or Black, and I don't see either, as much as I don't understand people who think that hair matters. It's been years since we had a leader with good face of hair.

The ONLY Candidate for VP that I see on Barack Obama's radar is Governor Bill Richardson from New Mexico. His resume reads well. His pedigree is real, can-do, bootstraps, American, with a Latino flair, and that matters in a nation where 1/4 of the people are similar to my wife.

I will go so far as to say that my vote will change if BO chooses BR.

Hands down. No question about it. It's a no-brainer.

Random

July 9th, 2008, 10:53 PM

I would disagree with that assessment. Personally, I think Clark was wise to stand his ground, considering his statement (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kcBg72mM5U) on McCain’s service was right on the money. True, it wasn’t politically correct, but it was undeniably accurate. McCain has no answer for it.
Meh. What Clark may say is true, McCain has been a senator longer than BO. You could argue that being a senator is not a qualification but you also put BO under that statement as well.

Personally, I just don't see Clark as VP.

sinjin

July 10th, 2008, 06:24 AM

Leo Lakio

July 10th, 2008, 09:03 AM

A President or Veep with a beard doesn't bother me but for many it would I suspect.An amusing take on the history of facial hair and U.S. Presidents can be found here (http://www.nicholaswhyte.info/presbeards.htm); apparently, the GOP has traditionally been the more hirsute party.

Random

July 10th, 2008, 03:25 PM

An amusing take on the history of facial hair and U.S. Presidents can be found here (http://www.nicholaswhyte.info/presbeards.htm); apparently, the GOP has traditionally been the more hirsute party.
Try telling that to Governor Linda Lingle. ;)

So, does that mean Britney Spears could be a registered Democrat?

If only McCain would adopt a porn 'stache...

Ron Whitfield

July 10th, 2008, 05:16 PM

Then he'd look like John Waters dad.

Frankie's Market

July 10th, 2008, 07:06 PM

Sinjin, let Bill have the beard.

For the record, the last president to have a mustache was William Howard Taft. The last candidate from a major party to have facial hair was 2 time Republican nominee Thomas E. Dewey.

Random

July 10th, 2008, 07:31 PM

If only McCain would adopt a porn 'stache...

Then he'd look like John Waters dad.
But he would win. :D

Walkoff Balk

July 10th, 2008, 07:38 PM

Does history tell us if size matters, and did the best man win?
I'm talkin' head of hair standards.

Leo Lakio

July 10th, 2008, 08:43 PM

Then he'd look like John Waters dad.
But he would win. :DHell, I'd vote for John Waters for President, if only to make all other foreign leaders unsure about what they were dealing with!

Ron Whitfield

July 11th, 2008, 09:53 AM

I'd vote for John Waters too. Pink flamingos in every yard!

sinjin

July 11th, 2008, 11:09 AM

Me thinks the country's not ready for a gay President just yet.

Ron Whitfield

July 11th, 2008, 11:23 AM

...but after 8 years of the entire country making like Divine following the poodle, anything would be better.

Leo Lakio

July 11th, 2008, 12:24 PM

Me thinks the country's not ready for a gay President just yet.Yet another reason we're in the handbasket we're in.

Random

July 11th, 2008, 02:37 PM

Me thinks the country's not ready for a gay President just yet.
Unless he looks like Mr. Rogers. :D

Won't you be ... my neighbor?

Leo Lakio

July 11th, 2008, 02:52 PM

Unless he looks like Mr. Rogers. :DI would vote for Fred Rogers for God.

In a heartbeat.

One of the sweetest, most "real" people I've ever met.

Walkoff Balk

July 11th, 2008, 10:23 PM

...but after 8 years of the entire country making like Divine following the poodle, anything would be better.

I read in a John Waters book where he made Divine, the big transvestite guy actually eat real dog poop in Pink Flamingos to get a more realistic acting reaction.

What's the deal with the Rev. Jesse Jackson saying that Barack Obama has been Bobbitized.

TuNnL

July 11th, 2008, 11:36 PM

I too regularly crop/shave my hair, "other" places included.Hmmmm...in that case, don’t let the Rev. Jesse Jackson be your barber (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quch7x3R6gw). :eek:

Random

July 12th, 2008, 12:49 PM

I would vote for Fred Rogers for God.

In a heartbeat.

One of the sweetest, most "real" people I've ever met.
I can hear the Episcopal minister turning in his grave, that he should replace God.

Nah, he should be the Messiah that the Jews are waiting for.

Leo Lakio

July 12th, 2008, 01:17 PM

I can hear the Episcopal minister turning in his grave, that he should replace God.Brah, waz wun Presbyterian, not Episopical...Epsopidsical...Epsipepsipeptobismol.. .wachoo sed. :p

Random

July 12th, 2008, 08:44 PM

Brah, waz wun Presbyterian, not Episopical...Epsopidsical...Epsipepsipeptobismol.. .wachoo sed. :p
Sorry, you Protestants all look alike. :p

Meh, could have pronounced worse. Had a kid who said his religious denomination is Joe Piscopo.

Leo Lakio

July 12th, 2008, 09:24 PM

Sorry, you Protestants all look alike. :pNot me - I one atheist (but was raised in the Episcopal church).

TuNnL

July 12th, 2008, 10:23 PM

Sorry, you Protestants all look alike. :p

Meh, could have pronounced worse. Had a kid who said his religious denomination is Joe Piscopo.Religion is big on Moloka‘i. That much I figured out. Never seen a place that was that house, house, church, house, house, church in my life. Mahalo to the late Sam Peters, jr. (Governor Linda Lingle’s former boyfriend) for giving me the dime tour. :)

rparkerjr

July 13th, 2008, 09:00 AM

Never seen a place that was that house, house, church, house, house, church in my life.

Apparently youve never been to Oklahoma :D

And they dont just go for quantity, they go for SIZE!

Junior

rparkerjr

July 13th, 2008, 09:31 AM

Trying to get back on topic...;)

Im at a loss as to who McCain would choose for a running mate, but frankly it doesnt matter to me since Im not voting for him. 100 years in Iraq is a definite turn off.

Now, on to Mr. Obama...I like the idea of Bill Richardson for VP. I liked him as a candidate, and I think he is a decent human being with an earnest desire to help not just the Latino voters but America in general. That being said, I agree with a lot of people here that he wouldnt be able to stand up to a lot of the heat that is going to come out in this election. Cabinet member, most assuredly. I think Wes Clark is still being talked about because of his military experience, which would help to shore up the national security gap in Obamas record. Not the best choice, but a choice. While I like Joe Biden, I think hes too "old politics" for what Obama is running on, but thats just opinion. Michael Bloomberg for VP, anyone? :D If Hillary get the VP slot, and thats a big IF considering how nasty the primary was, I will have to seriously reconsider voting democrat this year. I really like Obama but that would kill it for me. As non-PC as it is to say, there is a real possibility that some racist whack job will shoot Obama putting her in the drivers seat, which is what she has in the back of her head.

Of course, Id love to see any kind of Bloomberg, Hagel, Ron Paul ticket out there too, but thats wishful thinking!

Aloha-
Junior

TuNnL

July 14th, 2008, 12:39 AM

Im at a loss as to who McCain would choose for a running mate, but frankly it doesnt matter to me since Im not voting for him. 100 years in Iraq is a definite turn off.McCain doesn’t like most if not all of the other major candidates with national name recognition. That’s what makes the decision so painful for him. He stands almost alone with Dubya in his position as a centrist neocon Republican. Most GOP politicians have distanced themselves as far as they can from Bush due to his historic low popularity in national polling.

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, a retired African-American 4-star general who bucked heads with Rumsfeld during his tenure, is likely McCain’s only hope. Powell’s willingness to fight an uphill battle with McCain is another story, not to mention he is a year older then the Arizona senator. Sen. Joe Lieberman is the only “national name” that is unequivocally on the same page (http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080615/NEWS07/806150562/1009) as McCain. The problem is if McCain chooses the “independent Democrat,” he alienates every last conservative, including the ones who were planning to pull the lever for him as the lesser of two evils.

Now, on to Mr. Obama...I like the idea of Bill Richardson for VP. I liked him as a candidate, and I think he is a decent human being with an earnest desire to help not just the Latino voters but America in general. That being said, I agree with a lot of people here that he wouldnt be able to stand up to a lot of the heat that is going to come out in this election.I just don’t think this is true. Gov. Bill Richardson’s résumé (http://decision08.blogspot.com/2005/05/candidate-profile-nineteen-bill.html) and border-state credentials trump any questions of his occasional foot-in-mouth disease. Like Tim pointed out earlier, Latinos are the fastest growing demographic in the country, and Richardson requires no translation on Telemundo. That’s the whole reason Chris Dodd is on (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gxVW-aUPQsPkU0JKEleSPNCyxSsAD91RCQRO0) Obama’s short list, too. Richardson would refuse a cabinet position for the same reason Gore would refuse VP: he’s already done that (http://www.agiweb.org/hearings/richardson.html).

I think Wes Clark is still being talked about because of his military experience, which would help to shore up the national security gap in Obamas record. Not the best choice, but a choice.Gen. Clark’s advantage is he can credibly criticize McCain's record, since he has achieved far more than getting shot down by the Viet Cong. He achieved both military and diplomatic success as the commanding general in Kosovo, having gone back after the war to testify against Serbian dictator Slobodan Milošević at the Hague. While he is a visible MSNBC analyst, his weakness is on the homefront, where he has done little besides serve in token banking and defense-related positions and write a few books.

Leo Lakio

July 14th, 2008, 08:07 AM

not to mention he is a year older then the Arizona senator.Powell? Not. He's about seven months younger. McCain was born 8/29/36, Powell was born 4/5/37.

Ron Whitfield

July 14th, 2008, 10:51 AM

If Gore was given the opportunity by any party to lose as VP again, he'd jump at it, know it would probably be his last shot at the top spot which he has been in politics virtually his whole life for.

McCave/What My Lai massacre? Powell would be quite formidable opposition for BO, for sure, and you can kiss what's left of America good bye if they team up and win.

timkona

July 14th, 2008, 06:54 PM

http://news.aol.com/elections/story/_a/obamas-lead-has-faded-poll-says/20080714092009990001

First of all, in all the polls I have been reading, BO has never had a 15 point lead. I think the 15 point lead in June was pure liberal media, make-believe, wishful thinking, horse manure, wanna-be-ism.

Most business owners, when interviewing a potential employee, ALWAYS choose the guy with the least experience, and with no experience at all in the most important part of the job (a war). Right?

We shall see.

Walkoff Balk

July 14th, 2008, 07:32 PM

Did the late Tony Snow do a good job when he was the White House Press Secretary?

Leo Lakio

July 14th, 2008, 08:23 PM

Did the late Tony Snow do a good job when he was the White House Press Secretary?By what definition of "good"? He did bring a sense of humor to the role.

Walkoff Balk

July 14th, 2008, 08:34 PM

By what definition of "good"? He did bring a sense of humor to the role.
So did his boss, George W.

Leo Lakio

July 14th, 2008, 08:37 PM

So did his boss, George W.Hmph. He ain't made me laugh yet; way past time to get him off the stage.

timkona

July 15th, 2008, 07:29 PM

Obama declined an invitation from BAM Racing to be one of the sponsors on their NASCAR race car.

Nascar Nation does not strike me as his target audience. Good move Barack.

Walkoff Balk

July 15th, 2008, 08:09 PM

Hmph. He ain't made me laugh yet; way past time to get him off the stage.

The President will put on his top hat, duck-tail suit, and cane to sing & dance to:
Overture! Curtain Lights
This is It, The Night of Nights
No More Rehearsing or Nursing a Part
We Know Every Part by Heart
Overture! Curtain Lights
This is It, We'll Hit the Heights
And Oh What Heights We'll Hit
On With the Show This is It

Leo Lakio

July 16th, 2008, 09:04 AM

I think the many of the lyrics of "Comedy Tonight" (from "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum") would fit well.

Leo Lakio

July 17th, 2008, 01:08 PM

First of all, in all the polls I have been reading, BO has never had a 15 point lead. I think the 15 point lead in June was pure liberal media, make-believe, wishful thinking, horse manure, wanna-be-ism.Since media/the public/spinmeisters can read anything they like into poll results, perhaps the results of this question gave some hope to Democrats:
Regardless of who you are planning to vote for, who do you think will win the election in November--John McCain or Barack Obama?
John McCain.....................................30%
Barack Obama ..................................54%
That result came from a poll conducted by NBC News in conjunction with that bastion of the "liberal media," The Wall Street Journal, on June 6-9, 2008.

I read that there was another June '08 poll, from the same media, that specifically showed Sen. Obama with an 18-point lead over Sen. McCain, but I have yet to find it.