OCinBuffalo

I'm talking about not having to change people's minds, because they have their minds made up(what everyone expected) vs. only having to compete with an opponent's ideas on an equal footing(which no one expected). Around 2006, the general thinking was that the only way a Republican could win is if the Democrats massively screwed up. Now it seems that not only can a Republican win, but that he has a better chance, given the fact that it's gonna come down to the debates. Given what I was hearing in 2006 from every Democrat I know, and the usual suspects here, what other conclusion can be drawn besides: the Democrats massively screwed up? Again? As I said above, their policies have been just as bad as Bush's: hence it's now a tie. No, both are retarded by definition because we are listening to lawyers/staffers write about health care, as if they have any clue. Hell, the health care people our HC group works with every day don't have a clue about how to deal with the management problems ahead, both self-inflicted and government-inflicted, which is why they've been hiring us a lot lately. Not saying that they don't know how to provide care, I am saying they don't know how to manage it with the government constantly meddling and/or trying to apply one-size-fits-all regulations to an industry that, by definition, takes care of INDIVIDUAL human beings. I will email you the link for the Medicare "quality assurance" or NYS Medicaid forms if you need a good laugh. Why would lawyers putting health care people in a focus group and hammering out another 3 ring binder produce anything reasonable, when neither set of people knows how to fix the problems, much less how to define them properly, and usually the only thing those binders are good for is keeping a door open? The problem Americans care about is cost, but everything is so far jammed up with either clinical/bureaucratic distractions, or, nonsense legal liability concerns, or, other stuff I won't say here, there's no way in hell we will ever get cost under control. More regs = more bureaucracy = more cost. In fact, the regs have gotten so crazy = such a distraction, that dealing with them has now taken priority OVER giving care out of necessity, to the point where many professionals, and certainly their managers, are now more concerned about them than the patient, which is causing bad care, medical errors, and antipathy, which is the exact opposite outcome they were intended to produce. Therefore, no, I don't see any real detail there, so, like I said, there is nothing that I can really agree/disagree with in terms of "how", but it sure sounds nice! What I was referring to is that McCain has already come out with a clear framework, albeit a wire hanger framework, for HOW(sounds like he might even be looking at a SWOT on the government as a whole) he plans to do WHAT he says. But I guarantee you that more ridiculous regs of the same type that are there already....and there's your additional increased cost because now the provider has to hire even more care givers, not to give care, but to report/talk about it, never mind the administrative staff, the cost of updating poorly designed old systems, and bad consultants that don't fix/do anything except merely provide another 3 ring binder on WHAT to do, but not HOW to do it. Or, worse incompetents performing "studies" that tell people the wrong thing. Great plan... Maybe, but he has to "embrace" all of it now, and that means bye, bye "I'm gonna reform DC" message. Unless reform = kill off access to all special interest groups, including the teacher's union(No Child Left Behind), the Sierra club(Global Warming), and trial lawyers(Malpractice reform, Patriot Act....um, basically every "money for nothing" scheme there is). What are the chances of that? Tally it all up, great analysis here....but what's the bottom line? Either Dems are quite nuts, or, let their emotions get the better of them, or the most likely scenario: the black guy started gaining momentum, however slight, and the second that happened, the system stopped functioning as intended. Why? Because in the same second Obama was perceived to have momentum, anyone who might want to question him seriously, especially on experience, Dems or media, chickened out for fear that they might be called a racist-->except Russert/Stephanopolous. This isn't speculation, this is fact. Hell, they nailed Ferraro's ass to the floorboards for simply telling the truth. Geraldine Ferraro, the racist? WTF? Besides, I thought only Republicans were racist!!!! :cry: I understand your analysis, and if we were talking about 2 white guys it's so well thought out that it would be nearly undeniable. But we ain't talking about 2 white guys now are we? Let me re-write one of your sentences for you here: If the super delegates believed he had no shot of winning, they wouldn't support him. CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN.... If the super delegates believed he had a shot of winning, they wouldn't dare not support him...especially the ones that face tough elections, because....they want to have a shot at winning some day and they need minorities to show up to even have a chance. Cynical? Yes. But can you honestly tell me that this isn't in play, at least partially? So, taking the system as a whole, I see it as failing, because between the minority quotas, the Obama populist message(vs. the usual doom and gloom), and the media's/party leaders fear of appearing to look "racist", the system worked in reverse and selected the worst(and I am including every candidate), not best, candidate to face McCain. Dick Morris made a great point tonight: "McCain is the candidate that is guaranteed to win, for the party that can't win, while Obama is the candidate that can't win, for the party that can't lose. If you look at the candidates it's easily McCain's race, but if you look at the parties it's the Democrats race." He goes on to say that therefore, somebody is going to win big, and it's not gonna be that close, that the whole thing will come down to what happens next. I could have saved us all a lot of trouble and just said that, because that's what I am getting at. I would only add that they Dems as a party have done nothing to help Obama, the candidate who can't win, and plenty to hurt him, whether it's the primary, the policies, or failure of the Democratic Congress to do 1 thing they promised. Perhaps I should have questioned the sanity instead of the sincerity. Better? Bah! Or unless they felt there were consequences for them or the party if they were perceived to be "questioning" the black guy. Which I think is inherently racist. If Obama is = to everybody else, why wouldn't they subject him to the same scrutiny as any other candidate? Or, is it our/their culture pendulum swung so far to the other side that white people will only nail African American's that commit crime? But they won't think critically about AAs who are doing the "right" thing, even when that thing normally requires scrutiny(i.e. running for President?), for fear that somehow they might be perceived as racist, or worse, feel that they need to make it easier/reward the good behavior = patronize them? I agree, anything can happen as of right now. If you had told me that I would be telling you that "anything can happen" at this point in the election, a year ago, I would ask you if was drinking when I said it. As far as the Dem base goes, perhaps they stray because so many of the tenets of the far-left are such a departure from American thinking, norms, culture, reason, accountability, what has worked vs what fails historically, and common sense, that many of them occasionally come to their senses and throw the BS flag. As KTFBD said: the farther left the candidate(Carter, Mondale, McGovern, LBJ) the worse the beating. Those candidates that make sense, and have a centrist view in comparison(Clinton, Gore, JFK) always do better. The only time that doesn't happen and a real leftist gets elected(Carter) is when the Republicans do something so stupid that they give it away = Nixon. 18 months ago, I thought that this was a Nixon type year, so I thought we might end up with another Carter. However, as of now, Obama has to move to the center, both in the election and as a President if he wins, and there's nothing the far-left can do about it. They should enjoy themselves, happy that they got "their guy" for the next couple of weeks, but that's all they get, because I guarantee he ain't gonna be their guy for long. Not if he wants to win any of the debates, never mind actually get elected. Look he is already pulling back on his Madeline Albright, 1v1, legitimize retards plan. The Dems have been demanding 1v1 "diplomacy" for the last 4 years, but they ain't gonna get it from Obama, not now, never mind the fact that it was a stupid idea to begin with. Like Morris said, it's due to both. Things in their control that they screwed up royally: They had a terrible campaign strategy, they had an awful primary process that still isn't over with, and won't be even after this Friday. They are on the wrong side of some big issues now, especially Iraq. They have a huge problem to solve in terms of the VP. They have found a way to pick a lesser candidate, objectively. And, finally, they have done nothing positive since the got power in 2006. Things out of their control: Gas prices were projected to go down today(time to buy airlines), the housing market has bottomed out, and McCain just set the agenda for the debates, that they have to follow, unless they want to look like chickenshits. That's a lot of stuff that easily could have been avoided, if they had been reasonable, accountable, and spent more time doing and less time bitching.

Fine, but that still doesn't account for why McCain is only dealing with changing people from '3s' to '1s' instead of trying to get people from '1s' (for Obama) back to '2s', which is what I think most people thought the Republican nominee would be having to do right now to have any chance at all. I agree that most of what Obama has been saying is merely what people wanna hear. I don't see the same thing for McCain, though....Iraq, for example. I do think he is saying what we need to hear however. Obama has been so general that I don't know if he's saying what we need to hear yet. I have been and I know the difference between a tag line and the detail. I don't see the detail anywhere. Putting a bunch of tag lines into a paragrah '= detail. Obama's "message" has been 100% about fixing DC(cue fainting, screaming and crying), after all the emoting was done, people realized that he was a part of the thing that needed fixing. Now, I don't think people looked at him that way early on. How could they? Obama has only been there for 4 years? Most of the Democrat talking points(Bush Lied, "What did he know, when", etc.) which define the Dem policy were formed before he even got to DC, so no, they aren't his policy. Obviously the entire performance of Congress is not the fault of a 1st term Senator either. However, now that he is the nominee, he gets to inherit that garbage, and has to run with it, because he is taking on the role of "leader of the party". That means the whole party and all the crap, not just his personal policy anymore. See the difference? You're right about that. But it doesn't matter what Democrats think either. The only thing that matters is what the American people think overall, and right now, they like Hillary better(based on the results I just saw on CNN and Fox). If you have a loser mentality, I suppose you can revel in the fact that you won the battle but lost the war....Moral Victories are great, but real victories are real. I am throwing my hands up on this: you keep talking about candidates and how they relate to voting blocks individually going forward, while I am talking about parties and where they stood from 2006 till now. I suppose that if I was affected, then I would conclude that this system "worked" for the Democrats or that Obama was more electable than Hillary. But I am not. Objectively, the Democrats have elected the 2nd best candidate against McCain based on the polls. Them's the facts, brother. I question the sincerity of anyone who is "happy" about that. Or, maybe I question whether they are using their emotions rather than their reason. I don't suppose it's big stretch for Democrats to be doing that, now is it? What the hell difference does it all make if you lose? You can't govern if you don't win. Sorry, if I thought the point of running an election was to win, not about making people have funny feelings up their leg. The Dems had a win in the bag, and now they don't. IF they lose this election, the upset > 18*-1.

Nope, I got your point. It simply doesn't refute mine. Again, why are independents in play? older women Democrats in trouble, etc. given the political capital the Dems supposedly had from Bush being a mess? Once more, there are only 3 logical conclusions: Bush isn't so bad, Democrats have made major mistakes again, McCain is pretty good, or some combination of the three. Let's see if this time you can bring up anything that even comes close to refuting that. How about something that comes close to even addressing it? No, I am arguing that the Democrats have a policy problem, not Obama. I am also arguing that the Dems policy problems and Congress'(of which Obama is a part) lack of action is hurting them and bleeding through to the candidate. I am not arguing that Obama has a policy problem, because I haven't heard any policies from him yet other than Madeline Albright foreign policy, so how I can I see problems with something that largely doesn't exist? I am arguing that this primary has been anything but successful, has served to further hurt the Dems chances massively, beyond their failures, both political and real, on Iraq, energy, the economy etc. They have found a way to select the 2nd best candidate, and that this is amazing because they had everything going their way. Now everything is back to =, and, they are putting their JV team up against the Republicans Varsity, and there's no way that's a good idea no matter what anybody says. They have only their own failed policies and bad choices to blame for how they got from where they were in 2006 to where they are now. That's it. Great, but that wasn't my question. I asked you why you thought any of this "should" be happening, because the fact is it shouldn't. You tell me about independents, when the vast majority of them haven't even voted yet. What does that have to do with the Democrats screwing up their own primary? or the other major mistake they have made? should any of this be happening? NO friggin way! Oy vey! Please stop telling me what you think is going to happen with independents going forward and start telling me how we got here from 2006. No, they are there to nullify one or two groups, just like I said. They are their to ensure that one or two groups used their combined strength to get some body nominated, like McGovern, who the Republicans will kill in the general election. Remind me, how was McGovern electable again? It appears you are contradicting yourself here. We all know that the closer somebody is to the middle, the more electable they are, especially in a race that is likely to turn on independents. Right? I don't see what effect the phrasing has to do with it. Centrist Clinton good, Leftist Obama bad, in a race that is about independents. Obama's populist message has been blown up, per your own link, so all that is left is his extreme views, which, by definition, make him LESS electable, as evidenced by the #s that have Hillary winning this thing easy, and Obama tied. Right? Which is why I say that they keep screwing up and not learning anything (McGovern, Carter, Kerry) from their mistakes. They seem to think an ahole like Howard Dean is a good candidate, but forget that it's the Bill Clinton's that win. Perhaps they should change their business model, that is, if they want to win anything ever again on their own merits, and not win by having the other side screw up. By your own thread re Obama's risky strategy, which is now the Dems risky strategy, you are saying that this is a questionable idea. I am merely taking it a step further and calling it stupid, as evidenced by where Hillary stands in relation to McCain vs. Obama. You seem to be downplaying the concept of being electable in one point, but then turning around and saying it's very important in another? Which is it? I thought elections were about winning, not making the lunatic fringe happy. Which does Obama look to be doing right now, given the #s? That's what I have been saying right along, but more importantly that she would do better against McCain. I am also saying that I don't get how any of this is "good" for Democrats, or how anyone can't see that they have thrown away their significant advantage in this race over the last 2 years. You really don't think that these super delegates aren't trying to "not vote against the black guy"? I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one, because there's no way I think they are putting their faith in the process/new party people ahead of their concerns with their own political futures. Call me crazy, but politicians acting like politicians isn't happening here? Please. The fact is that they are now getting what they deserve for playing the race card in such a phony manner for years, and now it's time to pay the piper.

I don't see the Hillary distraction as a reasonable excuse for blowing the lead. Maybe it contributed significantly, but there's no way other factors like Obama's "guns and bible" speech = patently stupid, or Rev. Wright, etc. Haven't done just as much harm, if not more. You really think that Obama appeals to independents MORE than he does the far-left people in his own party right now? How about the reverse? You really think McCain appeals to the far right of his own party MORE than he does independents right now? Come on. Right now I would say that independents are generally up in the air, and so would the link you provided. Which, again, makes my point: McCain should be dealing with trying to get independents who are voting Obama back into the undecided category, he is not. He is talking to them on an equal basis. There's no way that should be happening given the massive amount of political capital the Democrats were given by George Bush. Obviously. The main point they make is similar to mine = slipping seriously amongst independents. But, they are talking about Obama, I am talking about the party as a whole. The simple fact is that there's no way any Democratic candidate should be slipping amongst any voting category right now. But it's happening in more than one, and that's astounding. Not only are independents being lost, but now we see a trend, per the link, that says white older women Democrats are pissed. Well there's the largest Democratic base category and there are losses in it. Like I said, self-inflicted wounds on the most important political category for Democrats, but you are trying to tell me things SHOULD be this way? Seriously? A year ago, if anyone had said that there was a serious risk that the Democrats were going to get a mediocre-poor showing from white, older women Democrats, people would ask them if they were high. But, according to you, that SHOULD be happening? Are you high? I will have to chase down the link I read that talks about this entire issue in depth. It does have some of what you are saying but it clearly draws the conclusions about super delegates being a stabilizing factor that ensures things stay more to the middle and not to the wings. I don't have time right now to find it, but your analysis is off here. The quotas were put in place, yes, but the super delegates were also put in place to essentially nullify whatever say any single group has in case their say is ridiculous. That's specific to one group( or Dem voting category like minorities, union, teachers, trial lawyers, etc.) When you have a populist candidate, as opposed to only a far left one, it messes everything up, hence the irony I am talking about, because the appeal is coming from multiple groups = the definition of populist. Also, the Democrats haven't ever had a serious minority candidate before, therefore the secondary effect is that the minority quotas are skewing things Obama's way. Your point isn't valid because you are talking terms of "average candidate" and not taking into account a black candidate with minority quotas helping him along. So, in this case, the guy that is the least likely to win, who is a populist far-left guy, instead of simply being a far-left guy, is being put up against McCain. The super delegate/quota structure is the reason. It's working the exact opposite way it was intended. Why? Because the assumptions when they came up with it were "the further left you are the less likely your chance to win" and "a populist is far more likely to be a moderate". They didn't take into account a guy who can do a f'ed up combination of "chicken in every pot" and "America is bad" at the same time. Hence the irony. The other highly ironic thing: using your minority quota point, the Democrats have basically found a way to affirmative action themselves into having the second best candidate be their nominee. What else should we call the minority quotas? And that's funny as hell too. It's hysterical to see that their own misguided policies have now put them in the same position they have insisted others be in: be forced to take the second best guy, because of his race, and hope that he does ok, even though the numbers clearly say he won't do as well the other candidate. Trump the primary system? Bullshitt! They don't want to come out and vote against Obama, even though they know it's the best thing for the party, because they will always have that hanging around their neck when they ask for minority support. Like I said, super delegate = career politician and mostly ELECTED politicians or people who want to get elected. They don't wanna bite the hand that feeds them in close elections = minorities. You have to be kidding me with this "I don't want to upset the apple cart argument". Are you actually buying that line? Come on. The fact is that the super delegates know that Hillary is the better candidate right now and are holding off as long as they can to see if anything comes up that they can use to justify voting for her. It is the case, and, like I said, your point about African American participation, doesn't take into account an African American candidate.

Lame. You know what I am saying yet you consistently try to play word games, how very politico of you. I do care about the poll I linked for the purpose of clearly demonstrating the tie between the parties, where, based on the massive amount of political capital Bush had given you, no way things should be tied. As I said above, I do not care about the poll WRT the eventual outcome, because it cannot be reasonably used for that purpose. Period. But, let's have some more semantic debates, I'm sure that won't be a waste of time. Look you guys can keep denying, spinning, managing expectations(poorly) and playing semantic games all you like, but none of it beats the facts. The only fact I have seen so far from you is "a long drawn out process". Apparently you forgot Obama's "guns and bible" speech, Rev. Wright fiasco(I still have no idea why they didn't have him quit that church a year ago....that calls a lot into question), impotency of Democratic Congress, and all the other crap that has happened. But, yeah, that's what I am getting at: the Dems as a whole had this in the bag, but now they have let it get away, and they will have to chase it the same as the Reps. Is that truly so difficult to understand? It's clear that the Dems have once again are suffering from self-inflicted wounds. I don't understand how a party that is supposedly full of intellectuals, can be this stupid, over and over and over. It staggers the imagination. What's even more stupid is that instead of recognizing the wounds for what they are = self-inflicted, the Dems consistently try to blame others or deny that the wounds are there. They should be learning from their mistakes, but, because they won't(or can't?) analyze their own history properly, they seem doomed to repeat them. If you have been around, then you know, for real, what I am saying is true. I am sure you don't "think" it's true, but I am just as sure you know it's true.

Ok, I'll take it under advisement, seriously. But here's another thought: go back and re-read this thread. All I have been doing is responding to: name calling, being called drunk, every other personal attack, people trying to put words in my mouth, and little content from most of the affected partisans here. I have an extremely low tolerance for BullShitt, especially of the political variety from both parties. I expect results, not talk, especially from people who have been screaming bloody murder that "if only" they were in power everything would be better. I am tired of hearing excuses from Democrats WRT their Congress' performance, as though the President's veto power is some new thing. They knew damn well that power existed before they made all their BS promises, and, after bitching for 6 years about not having the power they need "to do something", when they get it, they do exactly nothing, and go right back to what they were doing = bitching and whining. This is all fine, but given their history, and the fact that they already blew the lead they had, you honestly expect them not to find another way to lose? Obama has shown us little in terms of toughness or substance, partly because the media gave him a huge pass, partly because why should he when he knows that flowery speeches are doing the job just fine. In fact, I think the media and his campaign decisions are going to end up hurting him in the long run because he hasn't been truly tested. They only time we saw him in a tough spot = the last debate, he crumpled. I would think it would have been better for him to get some hard questions from the media about the issues starting midway through the primaries and have him show his ability. This preacher thing is such a distraction that we still haven't gotten into anything real for the most part. The only substantive discussion we have heard so far is foreign policy and he has clearly been whipped on that, especially today. So now we're back to the KTFBD "manage expectations" argument again. What happened to BushBad? You can't have it both ways. Either things were totally horrible in 2007, which is what you were telling us then btw, or they weren't. If they weren't then Bush doesn't deserve all the attacks, especially the ones that got your "team" elected in 2006. If they were, then again, you trusted Howard Dean with a boatload of political capital and he promptly wasted it for you. Never mind that you are about to nominate the 2nd best candidate against McCain. Great job Howard Dean. Imagine if that idiot had been the nominee in 2004.... As I said, of course they won't "think" they did anything wrong, EVER! Which is why they lose to idiots like Bush, twice, and have a 18.7% rating. I bet the Congressional Democrats don't "think" they haven't completely dropped the ball either. For all the new people they have brought in, they have alienated just as many in one of their major bases of support. Again, a truckload of money that has now been wasted. Do you think you are getting a lot of $$$ from 25-60 year old white women now? I have not heard anybody say the words "fantastic" and 2008 Democratic primary in the same sentence, anywhere. Of course, that's probably what a lot of Democrats "think" though, right? What in the hell are you talking about? They bitched and bitched, got Congress because of it, and now have done nothing. And you think that = opportunity? Opportunity to get their ass kicked maybe, but that's it. Hey like you said, everyones' entitled to their opinion, but if I was a Democrat I'd be hopping mad right now. Perhaps you should check out this and tell me she's the only one. M&M's should hire you to work on their candy coating process. Dude, I don't even care about this poll WRT the eventual outcome of the election. Isn't this clear by now? That's not what I am saying. All I am saying is that the chips are down. Anybody with any objectivity knows that Obama is the candidate, he's the 2nd best to run against McCain, and he is currently tied with him. The Democratic nominee is on equal terms with the Republican nominee and now has to out play John McCain in a straight up contest to win. There's no way that this turn of events was considered even possible, by reasonable people, a year ago, regardless of whatever. This means either: major mistakes for the Dems(once again), or, Bush wasn't as bad as they say, or, McCain must be pretty good. Or, some combination of all three, take your pick.

I knew somebody would come out with that. It's like the sun coming up. How is it stupid? No, wait, I don't care really. Suffice it to say that I should've used Rome accepting Christianity instead.

RCP is an average of a bunch of generally accepted polls, but I'm sure your one poll is a better indicator of the truth. Nice attempt at rewriting what Obama said into what he should have said. I would have no problem with him saying we should talk first before we attack, with the UN, our allies and other countries in the region, and especially if we can get 6 or 7 countries to sit down with us and Iran and have an "intervention". But that's not what he said. He said we should conduct open discussions 1 v1 with foreign wingnut dictators, with no pre-conditions, thereby legitimizing these turds, treating them as though they deserve to be taken seriously, directly contradicting American foreign policy of the last 40 years-->Democrat and Republican, revisiting the utter failure of Madeline Albright's approach, and most importantly defying reason and common sense. North Korea's dictator wears f'ing high heels, but you want to take him seriously? I bet you thought Qadafi's "line of death" was a reasonable position and his "perspective" was something to take seriously as well, huh? After all, it's important to listen to what people have to say, especially our enemies, because it's all just a matter of perspective. Right? Sure, everybody's opinion is "important". There's no such thing as evil people, or idiots, whose "opinion" is retarded. Once again, I am not saying McCain will win. I am saying that there's no way this should even be a contest, especially when you consider all that McCain has had to overcome to get here. McCain's campaign is every bit as "historic" as Obama's is, if not more. And, you have already lost in terms of where you were in 2006 to where you are now. Unfortunately we as a country bought your BS line that you were capable, willing and interested in fixing things, and the country has suffered for it, which means we lost too. But go ahead and blame Bush again for two years of talk and no action, what else should I expect?

Yes, I don't care whatever the "politically inspired" thoughts Democrats had were/are, and am talking about what people, all of them, thought for real. Maybe that's the problem here: you completely missed my premise. This isn't about what people "thought" in terms of political speak/affiliation. I am talking in terms of reasonable analysis. You are talking in terms of "wishing" or rooting. Of course all committed Democrats "think"(read: wish) that the Democrats will win the White House every day, all the time. I am not arguing that. Hell, I "think" the Bills are going to beat the Patriots 56-10 the last game of the season. Does that make it so? Is that a reasonable analysis? I am saying that all wishful thinking aside, reasonable people in general, Dems, Reps, Inds, thought that there was no way a Republican could win a year ago. Also, there is a huge difference between the polls = who people are going to vote for and who they "think" is going to win vs. who they reasonably think is going to win. Are you telling me you don't know the difference? So no, I don't care what Democrats wish, oh sorry, think is going to happen. I know that in the back of their minds they know damn well they have blown a huge lead, lost momentum, now have to start the general election even up, and most importantly that there's no way this should have happened = major screw up. Now, whether they "think" it's their fault or not? Who knows? But somehow I am guessing they "think"(wish) it really was Bush's/the media's/OCinPhilly's fault. Why would they change their "thinking" this time around? They already "thought" themselves into 2 losses against Bush and I am sure that nothing is going to change their "thinking" that somehow it's not their fault that they couldn't beat an, as defined by them, idiot...TWICE!!!

Fine. Should it be? Given Bush's situation? How does this account for the fact that Obama is tied with a guy who isn't even fully supported by his party's traditional base(yet?)? Should it even be close? Ok, that's not surprising since he took a beating from McCain today on foreign policy, and instead of responding, started talking about the economy and how Bush/McCain has been too distracted by foreign issues to pay attention to it. The worst is: that might even be true, but that's not a response to the points McCain made. That's lamely trying to change the subject. Is that what we can expect from him in dealing with China? I gained a lot of respect for Obama this weekend with the press conference he had re his old church, but then I lost it all today with his lame tactic. He's not helping himself by talking about the failures of the existing federal government, of which he is a part, that his party controls a majority of. So yeah, small wonder he has an image problem developing. Notice I haven't said anything about these religious nuts "helping" Obama out. Another strange thing: who would've thought that we'd be talking about wingnut religious people on the Democratic side of the ball? It's generally accepted knowledge that the Super Delegates structure was put in place to keep the wingnuts from winning the nomination, and thereby getting the Democrats crushed in the general. People mainly use the McGovern example as a real world example. Don't ask me about it, because I have no idea what McGovern does, did, etc. All I know is: right now the candidate who has a better shot to win the general election, who is clearly more centrist - Hell the word Clinton is synonymous with political expediency and taking the other side's issues away, is not going to get the chance to run. Instead, the far-left favorite is going to go. The super delegates were supposed to be able to stop this from happening, and are there to make sure the Dems win. Btw, why do you think so many are still on the fence? Answer: They are career politicians who are reading the same polls we are. It is highly ironic that the very system that is supposed to stop the Obama's is the thing that is getting him the nod. If the Dems had the same rules as the Reps, this would be over, with Hillary the nominee, 2 months ago.

Wow not only an insightful post, but an excellent job of refuting the content at the same time. Bravo Is their a finer example of Democratic intellectual leadership? We have name calling, taking shots at others who have nothing to do with this, and acting like a jackass all in the same sentence. And you wonder why I complain about Democrats having a severe substance deficit, bitching too much, offering little in the way of a solution to the problems they insist on defining over and over. This post goes a long way to disproving that point.

How many more times do I have to say it? My point is simple: the Dems have blown a big lead, it's 0/0 on the scoreboard, all that matters is what happens next. Nothing more, nothing less, and certainly not "McCain is going to win". Please stop putting words in my mouth. You know darn well what I am saying and now you are trying to duck it. The fact is that I used the link to talk about Dems v Reps today, as an indication of where things stand in reality, compared to where any reasonable person would expect them to stand a year ago. My post has nothing to do with Obama vs McCain a year ago, it does have to do with Reps vs. Dems and where that, ONLY, stood a year ago compared with today. Stop wasting our time arguing a point I didn't make. I don't care what the vast Majority of Dems think: they are still blaming everybody else but themselves for losing to Bush The Idiot, twice. Why would anyone take somebody who can't beat an idiot, twice, seriously, never mind what they think? I am sure many Dems still think that Carter was a good President or that raising taxes in an economic slowdown is a good idea, but that doesn't mean either of them true. Look I'm just telling it like it is and if you are too affected to accept that reality, and wanna attack me for telling the truth, that's your choice. Keep it up, and see what happens to you in November. What are the odds you will blame the media if McCain smokes Obama in the first debate?

It's not ridiculous, its a fact. Deny, deny, deny, and then blame others, blame others, blame others, and don't forget to tell us we need more government and therefore higher taxes for everyone. Basic Democrat plan the last 20 years. Read this slowly: You lost to Bush twice. Yes, you could not find a way to beat Bush....TWICE! Who's fault is that? Mine? What caused that problem? How can you move forward and actually get something positive accomplished if you follow the same path that lost you the last 2 Presidential elections, against, according to you, an idiot, and now has you tied, once again, with the Reps? If you can't beat an idiot, what does that make you? Hint: A bigger idiot! This is like 2000 all over again, and you didn't even learn the lesson Carter/Dukakis/Gore/Kerry should have taught you negatively, and Clinton positively. Now it's 50/50 split. Before Blowgate, it was Gore's to lose, and he could've screwed up moderately and still won. Your party has found a way to lose more times than the Dolphins did last year, and instead of fixing what is broken, you blame everybody else/call the American people idiots when you lose.

Link that proved a point I wasn't making. You are talking Obama vs. McCain, a year ago v today. I am talking Dems vs. Reps a year ago v today. And I am basically counting Obama = the Dems right now, where that wasn't true a year ago, because that's reality. He wasn't = the Dems a year ago because the primaries weren't even started. He is = the Dems right now and that much should be obvious, especially after this weekend. Well, that is if we are talking about the establishment Dems. Older white women Dems are a big problem for you now. Re "The Bet": I told you then and I am telling you now that I want to see the two teams play before I bet. Which is entirely reasonable. You can tell me I "chickened out" all you like but we both know what I said, why I said it, and that it makes sense. As I have told you this bet is = 49ers vs Seahawks to me, because I don't really feel like I have a horse in the race, and I want to see them in action in a debate so I can see apples to apples. Also, I win either way no matter who gets elected. Why? Because if it's McCain, we don't a crazy health care system and I can do what I do now. If Obama wins, then it's a windfall for me because now the government becomes my biggest customer, creating demand that we can ride forever. So, like I said, personally I win either way, regardless of who wins, which is why personally I don't really care. In terms of the country, although I highly doubt Obama will actually deliver on his promise regarding Iraq-->that may not even be his fault, I do have serious concerns about leaving a mess there, just like we did after the Afghan/Soviet war.

Are you seriously telling me that you did not think it was a foregone conclusion that the Democrats would the white house? Even as little as 6 months ago? I'm not drunk, but even if I was wasted, I doubt I would believe somebody telling me that the Dems haven't blown a huge lead, no matter how well they said it. Your whole 'expectations management' plan hinges on a poll regarding Obama v McCain from a year ago, before any debates, when you probably barely even knew who Obama was, and I am supposedly wrong for saying that the Dems have blown a huge lead? Is that what you are saying? ' What happened to your lead? your Congress? your moral superiority on Iraq? your absolute certainty that a recession was on the way? do you understand that you have basically blown the biggest lead in politics I have been alive for? Why are you yelling at me instead of yelling at the people who lost it for you? I had nothing to do with this. How is any of this my fault? Why am I being accused of being stupid/drunk for simply stating something that every pundit, Republican or Democrat agrees with? If you look at that site, you will find clear evidence that Hillary is the better candidate to go up against McCain. I don't like Hillary, because she hasn't helped upstate anywhere near the level she promised, but that doesn't mean I lose my ability to read. Edit: I forgot to close with: Obama was coddled by the media until Russer/Stephanopolous?(too lazy to look it up), and he got spanked in that debate. Having blown the huge lead, things aren't looking very good, and, like I said last time, both candidates have a long way to go. But I wanna see that first debate, because it looks like a blow out on paper, right now. Of course, that's why they play the games. Who knows? Obama might actually surprise us with something substantive to say this time around, instead of the "change" thing again. Change to what? Madeline Albright foreign policy? So far that's the only substantive thing I have heard.

How does any of that refute, or even hope to address, my simple, straightforward point? I'm not talking about individuals, I am talking about the Democrats as a whole. The whole team. Face it, your team is like the Oilers. You have just gotten done blowing an enormous lead, and all that matters is what happens during the rest of the game. And, apparently you have a Kevin Gilbride-type calling your plays. Definition of insanity: doing the same thing(blaming Bush/me) over and over expecting a different result. All of the Democrats activity combined has resulted in: tied with McCain at the end of the primary season. I don't see how blaming other people is going to get you anywhere other than where you are right now. It's obvious to me that you work in politics, because only retarded politician type wouldn't be able to see my simple point. Instead of taking stock of reality by putting all the facts on the table and then drawing a conclusion, you first choose ideology, and then try to find facts that make you "right". Yeah, real shocking that a political type won't deal with reality first, ideology second. Isn't that the reason we are in Iraq? or why you think government run health care is such a great plan(even though you have no idea why you think that)?

Buddy, apparently you aren't getting what I am saying. Polls from a year ago when we all were thinking Hillary/Guliani are hardly relevant. I will try again. Premises from a year ago: 1. Bush is so terrible that there is no way a Republican can win the White House. 2. The Democrats have won Congress and now that they are settled in, will change/fix a whole lot of stuff. 3. Whoever the Democratic nominee is, all the party as a whole has to do is walk it in, and they win. But now we are tied, all of those premises have been proven false, and the only thing that matters now is what happens next. Again, if you told me that any of 1-3 was complete BS, I would not of believed you. Is that so hard to understand?

No what's hysterical is that I have dared you to blame Bush twice in a row, even though it's obviously a failed strategy, and you keep doing it. I guess you really can't help yourself. If this continues, I might have to start feeling sorry for you because it will be clear that I am dealing with a mentally affected person, and it ain't cool to make fun of the disabled. Again, you still don't see it. If McCain has done a poor job of distancing himself from Bush, and if not distancing from Bush = Bad. Then doesn't it stand to reason that Obama > McCain by 10 points right now? But that's not reality is it? Whatever McCain has or hasn't done, has him tied with Obama. And there's no way that should be happening, especially if we are to believe that Bush/Republicans are so bad. So, either Bush/Republicans aren't so bad, or, McCain is really good, or, the Democrats have found a way to lose their massive advantage, or some combination of the three. Those are the only logical conclusions.

Yeah, and that means what exactly? Bush DIDN'T lie? Bush isn't an IDIOT! Bush wasn't wrong about Iraq, the economy, basically everything according to you? Now that you are tied, you start trying to manage expectations? hehehehehe! So now Bush wasn't so bad = the Democrats didn't have a giant lead = therefore the fact McCain is tied isn't such a big deal, right? Now this is funny right here, I don't care who you are. Please tell me more about how the fact that Bush's "activity" wasn't so bad after all, and he wasn't a giant albatross around the Republican's neck starting out in Iowa, this should be fun!

So apparently you missed the part where we were talking about what most people thought, in general, A YEAR AGO? Not 2 weeks ago? Amazing that I tell you that it's retarded to keep bringing up Bush, since that is what you have been doing and that's done so well it's got you tied, and you bring up Bush again. Hysterical. Buddy you can give me or anybody else all you want, as you have been doing right along, and what possible outcome do you think you are going to get? You have been doing the same thing for 2 years now and it has gotten you: tied with McCain and a 18.7 approval rating. And now you are threatening me with more? How funny is that? This is uncanny! I tell you that you are going to blame Bush, that it's retarded and doesn't work anymore, that it has served to get you tied, that the right course is to start requiring your Democratic Congress to get off their ass, and you blame Bush again. I am starting to wonder if we are dealing with a mass hysteria phenomenon. It's like you can't control yourselves. I wonder if you guys are even conscious when you act like this. I seriously don't get how blaming a lame duck President = good ideas for the country, leadership, proven results in your eyes. Hint: I don't care about Bush anymore, and from the polls, it looks like a lot of other people don't either. I want to see results from Democrats, I have heard your Bush story before and it's boring the F out of me. At the very least say something interesting/get something done. Or not, hell, you can always blame me/Bush again. That's a good idea! The world is not fine, and it won't be for a long time. So, again, if we agree the world is not fine, what, exactly, have the Democrats in Congress done to improve it? Go ahead and blame Bush again. Amuse me. Dance, Puppet!

Ahh, name calling, another of the time tested(lost elections against Reagan, Bush 1, Bush 2 twice) tactics that get Democrats ahead. Like I said, you can blame me, call me names, run your mouth, blame Bush, blame Katherine Harris, blame the Swiftboats, even blame God! None of that changes the fact that Obama is now tied with McCain. Accept reality. Sure, I have seen Democrats, NOT DEMOCRATIC POLLSTERS, say that Obama will pull ahead(not by 10 points, where the F did you get that?). Partisans saying that their team is better? That's your point? What other wonderful insight can we expect from you? Try again, because none of your wishing makes anything true. And, the bottom line is there is no way in hell we should see a tie right now, regardless of everything. Obama should be sitting with a 10 point lead at least given the Bush mess, but he's not. Hillary is the better candidate against McCain in every poll there is, and there's no denying it. You are putting a cup cake up against a tiger, and you seem to be happy about it. I'm sorry to be the one to bring you this objective viewpoint, but that's the fact jack. Blast away on me but the truth is: you are now tied with John "I was flying SouthWest by myself a year ago" McCain.

Yeah, I thought that it would be Hillary v Guliani. Same as the vast majority of this country. Yeah that's real shocking. I thought that Hillary would most likely win unless Guliani could use 9/11/Blowgate to great effect. Same as the vast majority of the pundits/rest of the country. Again, amazingly shocking! Obama in the lead, with a grand total of .7! And if you look at it, there's only one poll causing that. Everything else is tied, and everything is well within the generally accepted 3% margin of error = tie any way you look at it, unless you are an idiot. BAAAAAH! Too shocking to handle! We have a straight up tie, which means that the only thing that matters right now is what Obama and McCain do from this point going forward. It's 0/0 on the scoreboard. So yeah, the debates are now going to be the single largest factor in the rest of the game. OMG! Too shocking to handle! B word at me all you want but the fact that things are where they are isn't my fault. It's your fault, along with every other dumbass Democrat partisan that thought it was a good idea to blow all the political capital Bush gave them on stupid ideas/doing nothing once you got Congress/saying things like "The War is Lost". Once again, we see Democrats getting pissed at/blaming other people, when they should be accepting the blame for their own blatant failures, figuring out what they need to do to improve and executing that. Go ahead and blame me some more, B word about Bush, that strategy has worked so well that you are now tied with McCain. Great Job! Democrats blaming Bush/me in response to this in 5...4...3...2...

You can try to spin McCain = Bush all day but nobody's buying that BS. McCain was the one who was talking about a "surge" 5 months before anybody in the Bush Administration was, and he was obviously right. And, now the Democrats once again find themselves on the wrong side of the facts("The War is Lost"). He also ran against Bush in 2000. And finally, he has consistently done his own thing time and time again, which is why he's always been in trouble with the people you supposedly disagree with = Conservatives. So why is McCain a problem for you? He was praised to high heaven for campaign finance reform by every Democrat. Now somehow "he's changed"? BullShitt. I didn't say that McCain didn't have a long way to go. What I said was, he should have twice as far to go than he currently does, and that was so unrealistic to even consider a year ago that it defies belief.

Real Clear Politics General Election #s This is unreal. I know I have been saying that there would be serious consequences for the Democrats due to: 1. The Surge working. Lie to yourself all you want but everybody knows the difference between losing and winning. We are winning big now in Iraq and Afghanistan and that's all there is to it. "The War is Lost" - Harry Reid. I told you that would end up killing the Dems and now it has. 2. The Democratic Congress we absolutely had to elect to avoid the immediate destruction of the country. They needed to get to Congress as fast as possible so that they could do something about energy, the wars, the debt, the economy, the (fill in gratuitous bumper sticker here). Right, they have done nothing and their current approval rating is: 18.7%. Democrats love saying that 75% of the country is against the war. Well, 75% of the country is also against the Democratic Congress. Oh and by the way, Bush is beating them by 12%. Now that's something we can all be proud of. You are doing worse than Bush by a significant margin, congrats! I didn't even think that was possible any more, but the Dems have once again found a way to be worse than Bush. 3. Bringing up unrealistic entitlement programs once again. Didn't any Democrats learn from 1992-4? Do you need to be beaten over the head? Nobody wants Canada's health system here. They want the cost cut, that's it. They do not see Cut Cost = Socialized medicine, no matter how many times Dems try to make that equation work, it doesn't. Cut Cost means Cut Cost. That's all it means, and who doesn't want costs cut, in general, regarding everything we buy? 4. And of course, the endless bumper sticker arguments that are so cliched that they don't mean anything anymore(Bush Lied). Hey, they worked for 2006, but that's all she wrote. You have to have real, feasible ideas to win the Presidency, like Bill Clinton did(not health care, but change through adult education was a winner). Bitching '= ideas. And now we find out that Obama's "ideas" include talking to Iran 1 v 1, instead of using the UN, thereby directly contradicting what Dems, and anybody who knows anything about foreign policy, have been saying for the last 6 years. Madeline Albright, round 2? And you wonder why you are tied now? However, 18 months ago, I thought there was no way Hillary wouldn't be the next President. I thought maybe, just maybe, Guliani could try and use the Bill Clinton Blowgate and squeak out a win. But, I gave that a 10% chance of working. No way in hell did I ever think that any Republican would be tied with the Democrat this early in the process. No way in hell. Obama should be sitting with a nice, comfortable 10% lead right now, spending all his time beating back the Republican attacks that are sure to come, trying to use them, the same way Clinton did, to his advantage. No way he should be tied. But, that's were we sit. Obama supporters are laughable to me right now. I bet most of them are too young to remember McGovern. I certainly am. I bet they, just like McGovern's supporters, don't even see the beating coming and think that they can yell/throw pies/slogan their way to victory. Maybe they should have a concert festival, that will do a lot. Get Dave Matthews and Bruce Springstein to tell us how bad the USA is once again. That will help. They don't see the sucker punch(s) coming and it's going to hurt/KO them when it does. The irony is: the super delegate structure was supposed to STOP another McGovern from winning the nomination. Hysterical. I cant' believe this, Obama's only chance is to smoke McCain in the debates. Given both guy's debate history, right now I don't see that as likely. But, you never know until they go at it. I can't believe it has come down to this. The giant stack of political capital Bush's bumblings had given the Dems is now spent. They have to win this straight up, as if Bush didn't exist. Nobody buys the argument that McCain = Bush. That is just plain stupid and requires either an idiot or a mass denial of McCain's historical differences with Bush to be believed. I don't know how you screw up worse than this? Bay of Pigs? Iraq War strategy? They are nothing compared to this.

Is anybody else appreciating the wicked irony here in relation to the 2000 election? I watched Recount(HBO) the other day and I am having a hard time processing how in the hell the party that made such a big deal about disenfranchising voters and counting every vote, and said the phase "every vote should be counted" about a million times in the press, is now blatantly not counting votes. Isn't this the height of hypocrisy? How the hell did we get here? If you had told me a year ago that Democrats would be gleefully talking about votes not counting, under any circumstance, I would say no way. I would say that because I would have thought that they would never take such a huge risk on looking like total flip-floppers(again), especially considering their legal and public arguments from 2000, and Kerry's changing his position on a monthly basis. The worst is that their main argument was "intent". As in, "all the dimpled chad votes should count because there was clear intent to vote for Gore". Based on that argument so vehemently insisted upon, how can they now reject the intent of the Michigan voters? of any voters? All those people went down the polls for a reason, and their intentions were clear. How can anyone deny that? This is the biggest flip flop I have ever seen, and is only beaten by few from history(Hitler attacking Stalin comes to mind). I dunno, but I think there are going to be severe consequences for the Democrats because of this. Apparently they think we all have the memory of a fruit fly. Harriet Badass is not alone in her feelings, and while I don't necessarily think that = votes for McCain, I do think that it = stay home.