Who will win the most states? Who will have the most popular votes? Who will have the most committed delegates, the answer is Obama. But as long as the question is who will win the nomination, the answer is Clinton.
Has anyone done the math? I've not, but my BOTE suggests that Obama will have to get ahead of Hillary by approx. 150-200 raw delegates to overcome the Democrat Super-delegates, not factoring Florida and Michigan, which the DNC will likely seat to give Hillary an added advantage if necessary to ensure her victory. My guess is Hillary (with a good chance of Obama as VP candidate to quell the uprising among the 'Great-unwashed', advertised as Co-Candidates BTW).
If NB gets to mock us, we get to mock NB's obvious bias/agenda right-back. I just hope you're looking at the big picture, but if not I'll spell it out in a few words for ya. "That Bob-Dole RINO's gonna lose just like 'it's my turn' Dole lost, especially if the Dems nominate Obama but probably even if they're dumb-enough to leave Hillary on the ticket." The fact that Ron Paul WON'T run 3rd party means we won't be to blame for it, either.
JMR
PS Ya gotta appreciate the fact that I used the MRC's own CNS news service to mock the MRC, right?? ;) It's "the sarcasmo touch," and here's a bonus-URL! Thanks for the "delicious" ammo, MRC!!
Sarc, With his previous positions on illegal immigrants and tax cuts, J McC might have been a better choice for that third spot, but I have to admit I did laugh when I saw the "Ron Paul" in that list. The robot poll poppers should feel proud.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
Never seems to jibe with the content of the Daily Paul's herd of cats, but calling names is a lot easier than attacking the only-one left who proposes a cut in spending. I still don't think he has a chance, but the idea that this is funny isn't as powerful, for me, as the idea that it's sad. I think the fact that CPAC attendees literally had to be told not to boo McCain speaks volumes...
JMR
Sarc, The humor arises from putting someone diametrically opposed to the policies of two people rated at or near the top (bottom) on any scale tracking the most liberal votes on every major issue (when they find time to vote) into the same poll, at least for me. Having said that, I never saw Paul as a serious contender for the nomination and I did take a close look at his positions. I think that time will show there was some kind of inflation techniques used by his supporters. I think the technology is there and I think every candidate's campaign uses it to try and skew things.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
3 a: that quality which appeals to a sense of the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous b: the mental faculty of discovering, expressing, or appreciating the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous c: something that is or is designed to be comical or amusing.
Man, I'd hate to be standing next to you at the track, if your horse finished out of the money.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
1. Because it isn't funny. There's a reason Jodie Miller's check is a fraction of the size of Steven Colbert's. Free markets rule.
2. Posts I've made that were even a tiny bit critical of "NewsBusted" were indeed deleted. I try to be fair, but conservatives seem intent on proving Balboa's & others' stereotypes regarding humor around here.
JMR
that were much more than a tiny bit critical of Newsbusted.
You can't argue comedy. Any intelligent person should know that. If it's funny to me, who the hell cares what you think? Not you sarcasmo, but anyone else. You like it or you don't and someone else disliking it isn't going to affect our opinion of it. In liberal circles it may matter because they are all bandwagon jumpers but you are wasting your time. We all know you don't like it. Are you going to start trying to argue that chocolate isn't the tastiest ice cream? Come on. What a waste of time. We all have different tastes and just because you might not like chocolate ice cream doesn't mean we can't. It's rude to come here and keep harping on something like that.
And if one can't argue comedy, many arguments here about NewsBusted are pointless -- hence my reference to markets & the relative sizes of paychecks. :) And it's not the least bit rude to bust NB's own new-media-bias. Responses here today indicate it's more like "desperately-needed." If the NB masthead were even halfway as honest as you & some others here are about their obvious disdain for Ron Paul, I'd be happy to see the admission of bias. They're not, so to me it sounds a lot like Dan Rather claiming he's got no agenda against Republicans sounds to you. Both dogs don't hunt.
JMR
but to argue with someone who thinks it's funny saying it's not is pointless. It's not funny to you - I get that - I'm not going to tell you that it's funny to you and you can't tell anyone else that it's not funny to them. There is no point to you watching it or commenting on it because you don't think it's funny and you never will. It's not your type of thing and that is fine.
Newsbusters is bias and always will be I hope. If I want so called fair and balance I can go to Fox. I don't agree with all of Newsbusters opinions (illegal immigration being the biggest) and I don't run around telling them they are biased on it. They don't claim to be some impartial judge like the media do. I'm biased and your biased we are all biased.
If I want to start my own web site on bias against guest worker programs I can and if you want to start yours on Ron Paul bias you can. Heck we can even put up a forums topic any time we want.
If you want to point out bias against Libertarians on Fox that's different. They are supposed to be "Fair and balanced". Of course it's unrealistic to think that any news organization can give equal time to every point of view and every faction out there. The goal shouldn't be to give certain parties or individuals equal time, but positions. Every position has a left a right and a center and all should be presented by the people who represent the view.
Ron Paul's anti-war position is covered favorably by the media and his fiscal policy and everything else he stands for is misrepresented like it is for the rest of conservatives.
p>
($24 million minus immense taxes, but I have yet to check!) you'll see a media bias group bustin' antilibertarian bias so fast it'd literally make your head spin! In the short-term this might help NB, since the very first thing I'd do is try to buy an ad from us.
And I didn't measure it, but I saw no different war/non-war coverage from the media during the Paul-blackout. The "journalists" simply didn't mention the name at all -- kinda like they've done with Keyes, but minus the 100s of Meetup-groups & dozens of straw-poll wins. (For the record, I think NB should have probably covered the media's Keyes-exclusion more, too, even though I don't agree with every single thing Alan says!) What can I say? Being a media-critic makes me a NB-critic, too. I'll get back to blasting old media shortly, I'm sure.
Hmmm. Now I'm mentally stuck in an evil FL Lotto-fantasyland of busting antilibertarian media bias with an actual budget. Hell, I might even be able to tempt Cliff Kincaid away from Accuracy In Media if I offered him enough! ;) And I suspect we vehemently-agree on one thing: Saying "NB has no agenda WRT Paul" is about as hilariously funny as saying "sarcasmo has no agenda..." :)
In fact, I'll make my Paul advice public. I want Ron to negotiate for an hour of prime time to withdraw immediately (accept 45 minutes as a compromise). If I were Paul, I'd make at least 30 minutes of it against a single target: the Department of Education. That's right, I don't think Dr. Paul needs to mention ANY other aspect of the obese government I despise (and you folks know, I hate a lot of obese-government agencies!). Just try, desperately, to get the Republican Party to say they'll keep Ronald Reagan's promise, instead of totally contravening it as they've done. I don't think it's too much to ask, but I also don't think it's very likely to happen.
JMR
fantasy land made me laugh. I'll tell you, if you do ever win then I hope you will be using it for a candidate I like. ; )
Actually - I may even have to back up on what I said about the war coverage because the media seemed to back off and give a little more favorable (everything is relative though) coverage than they had been in order to propel McCain to victory.
You probably did lose out there overall on the war coverage also. I do feel for you Sarc. You obviously have a lot of enthusiasm and passion and that's a good thing. It's such a hard uphill battle. I wish you luck everywhere but Newsbusters because I like their biased agenda on most things.
I've seen a lot of posts deleted, but somehow this one remains. I love the reaction to my NB-mocking here being so-similar to the MSM's reaction to NB's own busts, it's just too-funny. And I think the motto of "NewsBusted" might be "where seldom is heard a discouraging word." Delete enough slightly-negative posts, and that's the kind of joke it engenders...
JMR
Leon's attacks on NewsBusted are much stronger (and more cogent, I might add) than yours....yet they're never deleted.
Maybe the staff has it in for you? :^)
"He was a would-be sharp operator who lacked for the satisfaction of his ambition only the quality of sharpness..." -Michael Chabon, "Gentlemen of the Road"
You may like Leon's analysis better than mine (who cares?) but I suspect some of his have done the vanishing-act as well. The annoying thing is that the most recent example in question was only mildly-critical of the un-funny-ness, and the main subject of the comment was the largely-UN-discussed topic of Carl Cameron's keeping a secret (or not?) about Fred only-really-wanting the VICE-Presidency (if true?). I think it's an interesting subject, both for the ethical issues of keeping such a secret as a journalist and the possible "black hole" effect on Cameron's own reporting. It was silenced, somewhat stupidly IMO.
JMR
isn't the same as "liking" them. But I take note of your paranoia on leon's behalf....even though he hasn't mentioned losing any posts to the "censors."
"He was a would-be sharp operator who lacked for the satisfaction of his ambition only the quality of sharpness, and who expended all of his energies on preserving his opinions from contamination." -Michael Chabon, "Gentlemen of the Road"
But YOU'RE the only one using the c-word in this tiff, and I'd bet my "paranoia" strongly-resembles the truth in Leon's case since it's the (somewhat stupid-looking on NB's part, as I've said) truth in my case. Once-again, we're not-discussing Carl Cameron's possible ethical issue regarding Thompson secret-keeping/reporting.
That NB's editors dimwittedly-deleted an on-topic (and not even all that critical of NewsBusted's manifest un-funnyness!) comment of mine is beyond question. Why not discuss the Fox News "professional's" ethical issue instead of leaving it cloaked? Beats me.
JMR
I know you pride yourself in marching to a different drummer, but try to retain some hold on reality. Are you claiming that having a post deleted is not "censorship?"
And, just for the record, I think it's outrageous and unfair that NB is deleting your negative reviews of NewsBusted while leaving Leon's up. Like I said, NB obviously has it in for you and Libertarians. No wonder you're paranoid....(sarc off). :^)
"He was a would-be sharp operator who lacked for the satisfaction of his ambition only the quality of sharpness..." -Michael Chabon, "Gentlemen of the Road"
The Wall Street Journal reports Paul's office says those requests include $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million to pay for research into shrimp fishing.
A spokesman says, "Reducing earmarks does not reduce government spending, and it does not prohibit spending upon those things that are earmarked. What people who push earmark reform are doing is they are particularly misleading the public — and I have to presume it's not by accident."
Sarc, Here's what I found on robots, when I went looking for info after this came out the first time:
The University of Alabama-Birmingham's computer forensics research department, which collects spam messages as part of its Spam Data Mining for Law Enforcement Applications project, analyzes hundreds of thousands of e-mail messages per month. When it began getting bombarded with e-mails about Ron Paul immediately following a Republican debate on TV, the lab began to examine their origin and saw consistent patterns that it described as "disturbing."
The e-mails originated from IPs all over the world, but researchers' suspicions were aroused when they found that the e-mails purported to come from different countries than their IPs indicated. Messages claiming to come from the US were actually coming from Korea, for example, and messages claiming to come from Italy were actually coming from the US. The pattern showed that the messages were clearly not coming from Ron Paul's official campaign, but rather illegitimate spam operations and botnets.
"We've seen many previous e-mails reported as spam from other campaigns or parties, but when we've investigated them, they all were sent from the legitimate parties," department director Gary Warner said in a statement. In contrast, the Ron Paul messages clearly came from a number of other parties attempting to spoof where they came from. Paul's campaign may run afoul of the authorities as a result of these e-mails. Warner believes that the messages may violate the CAN-SPAM Act due to their deceptive sending practices.
The Ron Paul camp, however, wants to make sure the world knows it's not involved in the spam. "This is the first I've heard about this situation," Ron Paul spokesman Jesse Benton told Wired. "If it is true, it could be done by a well-intentioned yet misguided supporter or someone with bad intentions trying to embarrass the campaign. Either way, this is independent work, and we have no connection."
I'm not saying UAB might not be a hotbed of liberal kooks looking to trash a GOP candidate or that Paul knew there were people out there doing this, but there is some info out there on people who were spamming polls for Pauls' benefit.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
But as regards the "for Paul's benefit" part, your "proof" is sorely lacking. Do you actually assume spam whose sole purpose was apparently to attack kick-ass YouTube posts by RP supporters was to the benefit of RP? If so, how??
JMR
Where in the post I put up does it say anything about YouTube? I think what UAB was questioning was probably emails voting for who won some televised debate, since that is where the claim of spammed origins came in: "bombarded with e-mails about Ron Paul immediately following a Republican debate on TV" . One might think you're trying to strawman my post, Sarc.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
But the spam attack was well covered on the Daily Paul, and that was the purpose of the spams. And emails didn't vote, text phones did. No strawman, just making sure you're accurate about the original source of the spam & especially who paid for it, both of which you don't know.
JMR
"Spam supporting presidential hopeful Ron Paul filled inboxes this week as zombie computers spewed thousands of messages to recipients, according to spam experts. The spam supporting Paul was sent using the same illegal spam methods used to distribute masculinity enhancement products and pump-and-dump penny stock schemes.
...
Accusations that supporters of Paul are using spammy tactics to promote the candidate don't stop with e-mail. The suspicious point out that Paul garners a disproportionate amount of support online (as measured by Web-based polls, mentions in blogs, and frequency of Web searches conducted by users related to "Ron Paul") compared to voter interest polls conducted offline. That fact may suggest Paul's online supporters are stuffing the virtual ballot by voting early and often at political polling Web sites.
Benton chalks up the lopsided support online verses offline by noting that Paul has won some of the tech savvy-voters by supporting issues such as an Internet unfettered by government regulation."
Again, please note that I'm not accusing the Paul campaign directly, but who benefits from such tatcics is obvious.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
When a variety of excellent Ron Paul YouTube videos were taken-down due to the spam in question. This was well covered on the Daily Paul, and the trolls there made the same baseless accusations but could not back 'em up either, especially in view of the facts/consequences.
JMR
Sarc, Excuse me, but your source that these claims are baseless is not exactly unbiased. The "Daily Paul" says it isn't so, so it isn't so. I'm going to go out on a limb here and speculate that the "Paul" in there is Ron Paul. That may be a crazy assumption. When I was ten and threw that rock through a window at my house, my parents didn't believe my denials. They felt I was not a reliable source to exculpate me. I've given you two sources in print. I haven't seen any libel suits by Ron Paul against either of the sources I've sited (although his status as a congressman are keeping a few from being filed against him), so I would say the ball is firmly in your court to find a site from somewhere unrelated to Congressman Paul's efforts to disprove my contention that there are robots being used by people who support him and that these robotic actions have been to his benefit. Again, I don't claim he is involved, just that he has received a disportionate amount recognition or acclaim from these action.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
And your sources don't try to draw the same conclusion as you're desperately trying to draw here via the absence of libel suits from a public figure. I don't care if the Daily Paul is related to Paul, I care that the explanation of the spammer's motives I saw there (getting rid of YouTube videos, which like it or not was the main effect of the spam) is better than yours, because it is.
You have 0 proof people who support Paul did this, and I've offered YouTube video banning examples of why that's both improbable & illogical, and therefore quite likely was Paul's OPPONENTS, despite the various accusations. The 10 year old analogy is particularly-lame in this instance where accusation-becomes-proof. No outside sources needed, you've simply been refuted, unless you can find a way to argue that spam gives a candidate anything resembling positive recognition or acclaim while interfering with supportive YouTube videos.
JMR
Sarc, The only link I see to anything in any of the stuff you've posted in this thread is in your tagline. I didn't realize you were editing your signature block with reference supporting your position in each post.
I'm not trying to draw any conclusion from what I've linked to in this thread beyond these two points, which I haven't seen you refute: 1). There was evidence of email from singular IPs claiming to have originated from multiple addresses. 2). The message bodies of said emails were in support of Ron Paul. If the best you have is "Ron says" we may as well end this discussion. I never claimed Congressman Paul was involved, because there is no evidence to support that, but if someone pays for my dinner, I benefit from having eaten dinner and from not having to pay for it myself. The initial label of "robot poll poppers" must have struck a nerve. If you can't post a Paul link due to site restrictions, give me a search string that will locate your evidence and I'll do my own search.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
My tagline hasn't changed in this thread, AFAIK, and I looked.
I don't dispute (1.) but (2.) has already been refuted. The purpose, and it worked for a few days, was to make effective YouTube videos disappear due to spam complaints. If I were to secretly pay a Romanian spammer to bombard the 'net with thousands of positive-sounding messages about NewsBusters, how exactly would that criminal act benefit NewsBusters?
No link is needed, if you can answer that question in bold honestly you'll have answered yourself for me. I have a bit of experience in this area, which is why I've said this. In fact, it might be interesting to see if a specially tailored spam could make a NewsBusted episode unavailable in the same spammy way, but that would be an illegal/unethical way of proving my point.
JMR
I wasn't conceding your point. I was on vacation. This will be my final post on this subject. You're strawmanning me with some YouTube spamming crapola. The orignal contention of my post was that the popularity of Congressman Paul was inflated by botnet postings after the Republican debates last fall, as was alluded to in my first link in the posts above. Here is the title of the content of a link embedded in that link: "'Criminal' Botnet Stumps for Ron Paul, Researchers Allege ". Look, no mention of YouTube or why videos should be pulled from it. It says a bunch of emails claiming to be from individuals saying "Ron Paul won the debate..." turned out to be from single IPs. That means one machine sent multiple votes for Ron. How does that help Ron Paul? It makes him look more popular than he really is. Does that translate to more campaign contributions? I don't know. My "robot poll poppers" label is set in concrete. Again, I didn't say it was Ron at his keyboard doing the spamming. I have a huge tree in my backyard. I didn't plant it, but I sure enjoy the shade.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
Sarc, you have to be Ron Paul himself. Why else would you bang you head against the wall in support for a very FINE man, but not a winner. All of this rubbish about him winning elections is tired. VERY tired. I have conceded that The GOP has had a 'makeover' if you will and it will take quite a few years to get back on track. HOWEVER, my promise remains. If McCain is the Nominee, I'm voting for Barack. Our country cannot survive another Clinton Presidency. I want to see that b*tch IMPLODE. I want to see her lose in a BIG way. I want her to divorce Bill and have all the Clintons dissolve. What a glorious day that will be!
I'm just mocking NB as usual when NB's biased against libertarians, but you've illustrated "sarcasmo hallucination syndrome" here. If NB had STFU & not started it, they'd not be mocked. They didn't STFU, so I mocked NB with a CNS url. And then I found another one. This is my role, so please get used to it.
JMR
PS For the record, if I were Paul (and I'm definitely-not, or he'd have run the campaign differently!) I'd be negotiating with the party-officials who hate me for a prime-time speech. Then I'd spend pretty-much the entire rant attacking the bloated Department of Education & desperately trying to make my party consider keeping Reagan's promise regarding same.
Sarc, I don't understand why you think you're mocking NB when the links you provided are not endorsements from them, CNS or MRC but from Paul himself stating that he's the only true conservative.
If you found something like Brent Bozell stating that Paul was the only true conservative out there now, then you would have made a good point.
BTW, I didn't find the Paul joke for this thread that funny. He's obviously conservative and then some on certain issues.
But I sure-do! NB regulars don't like it when I bust NB's bias. This is nothing new, but it's nothing different from the old media. Bozell's opinion/endorsement is entirely irrelevant in this case, CNS was obviously-enough.
JMR
Bozell's opinion/endorsement is entirely irrelevant in this case, CNS was obviously-enough.
Again, why is it enough? Your attempt at mockery only works if you pinpoint where a Bozell organization contradict themselves over Paul. You obviously didn't here.
But I sure-do! NB regulars don't like it when I bust NB's bias. This is nothing new, but it's nothing different from the old media.
Since NB is upfront with their contempt for libertarians, what are you actually busting?
I don't agree with their viewpoint, BTW, since libertarians make excellent points in many areas, but they are entitled to beat up anyone they want.
If Bozell's not at all related to CNC/MRC. Good luck making that point! ;)
And Mr. Sheffield has claimed "no agenda" in past busts I've done on these entirely-meaningless polls. It seems you, Dee Bunk, and I all agree on NB's agenda, which you described quite-well, but it seems the NB masthead somehow differs, no? I'm entitled to mock back when they try to mock us, so I did, and IMO it's workin'.
JMR
Ron Paul is either a racist or too incompetant to prevent his own newsletters from being run by them. Such people have no place in the conservative or the libertarian world.
The latter statement is borne out by the fact that the intellectual wing of the libertarian movement (with whom I was having cocktails last Saturday at Reason HQ) has rejected Paul out of hand.
We have no anti-libertarian bias. We have an anti-wacko bias.
A pro-name-calling bias, as has BD. (And for the record, I was among the Wendy McElroy crowd which wanted & didn't get a purge.) I think the issue was used as an excuse for media bias that was already-clearly-there in the old and new media. Others have admitted the obvious agenda, whether or not you're willing to, anyway. Assume the newsletter issue had not happened: I think we'd have seen the same biased agenda both here and in the rest of the media, since we saw it before I knew anything about 'em. In fact, I was busting antilibertarian bias singlehandedly here a year before Paul even ran.
And speaking of "no place in the conservative...world," if you think the present Republican candidate is somehow free of racist-speech (let alone wackiness...) issues, you're in the same double-standard fantasyland as "Tinian." Just wait for the Democrats to dredge up some of his "straight talk," which might even be on videotape for all I know. I repeat, NB hasn't been anything-like balanced or fair on this one any more than the rest of the MSM. And your reference to cocktails with the cosmotarian set is unintentionally-funny, too. Reason is far from the only source of intellectuals in libertarian-land, and being inside the Beltway doesn't make them a bit smarter.
JMR
He hasn't stated a national agenda beyond the recurring chant.
I loved Hannity asking his supporters to state an accomplishment. They couldn't do it. You really can't blame them, he's only been a senator for three years, and he's been running for presidentfor two of them. When you consider, he probably spent the first year learning how to get around DC and where the bathrooms in the Senate where, he hasn't had much time to set an agenda.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
Right,Hunter12. However, I'm afraid we are at the point to which this country has been coming for a long time. Many (especially the young) I speak to do not know the issues and most truly don't care. It's sad. Our educational system and the media have combined to create an ignorant country, obsessed with money and pleasure. Basic values are no longer "in vogue" as we go the way of so many other nations throughout history. The idea that a man with no experience can come this close to the presidency by saying absolutely nothing specific speaks volumes about where we are. Ignorance is bliss and the charlatans know it.
I would hazzard to guess that the majority of people in this country still get their news and political insight from CBS, NBC, and ABC. It's a world of buzzwords and images. Liberal professors in colleges and liberal rock stars and movie actors are where our youth are getting their information on who to support. The young don't understand that they're getting a message from people who either don't practice what they preach or are just as uneducated and naive as their audience is. Look at Babs Streisand. She endorses HRC. Does anyone ever expect they'll see their name ahead of Babs on a transplant list when HillaryCare is implemented? And please stay off her beach. Bono is out there preaching how America should spend their wealth while he hides his from his home country of Ireland. Maybe the tax rates are excessive over there. I don't know, but when someone with a couple hundred million looses a hundred million, they still have a hundred million left. Image is everything, just don't look too close.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
Had we not been at war RP would have done much better, of course the neo cons figured this out long ago, hence the war and the next war and the war after that. Congrats guys, you smoked us.
Freedom is a vital component of human effectiveness and fulfillment.
Of Course the RP haters gotta get their jabs in. Immaturity and examples of the big baby attitude some have to him is even further illustrated by this. Im not so much offended, its just laughable how I post about conservative-driven bias and then *boom* here we are.
Just an aside, Ron Paul is the only true conservative still campaigning for the POTUS. To say he's getting the Dem nod is not only laughable but really harkens to the ignorance to whomever posted it. Good for a laugh no doubt, but if we're playing fair here, the race is more like everyone BUT Ron Paul is running for the DNC nod, especially given McCain's rather liberal leanings and close ties to some of the most despicable liberals in Washington.
Ron Paul is the only true conservative still campaigning for the POTUS.
I agree. And if it were not for his ill-conceived, head-in-the-sand isolationism, which would be fatal to this country given the times we live in, instead of sitting here typing this response, I would be out there campaigning for the man at this very moment.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
As for "getting jabs in", if you want end that, maybe you could suggest to him that he stop making himself so target-rich with some of the ridiculous things he says.
"He was a would-be sharp operator who lacked for the satisfaction of his ambition only the quality of sharpness..." -Michael Chabon, "Gentlemen of the Road"
lol I dont mind when people take him to task over things they disagree with him on, quite the contrary. I only get annoyed when people take shots at him in areas where its completely unrelated. This posted poll is just a low blow and speaks of a sour puss attitude. RP can't get the Repub's nomination so why do people still feel the need to tear him up when the topic isnt even relative to him?
Thats all. If you dislike his foreign policy or fiscal plans, by all means, go to task with it. However, when talking about something that has NOTHING to do with him (democrats and liberals) its just childish and stupid to try and equate him to that. That's like asking in the 80's who would become the new leader for Russia before the collapse of Communism, Ronald Reagan or Mikhail Gorbachev.
There were SEVERAL small government conservatives that would've made better candidates than McLame, and were better on foreign policy than Ru Paul. The "base" chose a liberal though.
Rush is right.
#1) We can't afford to let either Hillary or Obama to win. Hillary for obvious reasons, and Obama because IMO (not Rush's) HE IS a mirror image of other charismatic leaders from the past. I'm not going to mention names, you can watch their pre-election speeches and contrast and compare on your own.
#2) McLame WILL change the republican party. But the democrats went for their base this election cycle, the nutroots that read Chomsky and collect every word he speaks like it's the gospel. The american loving democrats are going to verbally support Obama/Hillary (whichever is elected) then vote for McLame.
Actually, the dims nominating Ron Paul might not be a bad idea. Currently, B. Hussein Obama and Broom Hilda are tearing the guts out of the party. Maybe he would be a stabilizing force. :-^)
I think Barack Hussein Obama will be the nominee for the democrats.
*BTW-If we could elect two presidents simultaineously, I would vote for Paul's domestic agenda in a second, but I would want someone else in the CIC's chair.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
Key word is WIN the nomination and the answer is no one will win the DNC nomination. It will be AWARDED.
John Edwards said it would be a brokered convention of super delegates.
Howard Dean announced already that "if no one wins the election in 2 months he will set down in a meeting AND CHOOSE THE NOMINEE".
Lowell Ponte brilliantly laid out this entire scenario last year in a brokered convention and Al Gore being chosen.
Until things change like Patrick Fitzgerald is fired so he does not have his already sealed indictment of Barak Obama to Hillary being given a Presidential pardon by George W. Bush for all crimes forever..............I will maintain what the cartel has been pushing and that is a brokered convention from a fractured party system with Al Gore promoted as the savior of America as everyone else is in jail or about about to be.
I fully expect his buddy Mike Bloomberglobalist to be his "former Democrat reformed Republican" to be the ticket.
With goofy Dr. Strangecain being used to fracture the GOP with liberal Huckabee and the grinning Ron Paul anti Semite anti Christian........well John McCain stalking a woman on Saturday Night Live is about all it is going to take for the Goldwater atomic bomb commercial to give America a Hugh Chavez el presidente with 23% of the vote.
The cartel pulls this crap in every nation around the world where there is not a Putin to murder all the competition. That is how they cement power.
Obama is a dunce. Hillary a shrew...........the DNC doesn't want these clowns but fights over who to vote for in the lesser of evils.
Same is true with liberal McCain and liberal Huckabee.
This is a great trick question again, but I did not vote as one can not vote for what can not happen.
How about it Newsbusters putting up the real question of Lynn Cheney as Vice President to unite the Conservatives behind McCain, tank Huckabee and put someone on the ticket we can trust to keep Strangecain in line.
Fix this besides busting the liberals as this GOP is in need of uniting and fixing.
I saw a delegate tally last night that indicated that Mike Gravel was still in the race [0 delegates, but has not withdrawn]. Shouldn't he have been listed on this poll? :o)
Chai
“...Bury me on my face,” said Diogenes; and when he was asked why, he replied, “Because in a little while everything will be turned upside down.”
Turn
back the clock a year. We were told the Klintons were going to continue
their magic (aka sleaze) and another 8 years was just destiny. As
Bogart said in Casablanca, “looks like destiny took a hand”… or maybe
even divine providence, even maybe the Lord has had enough. This pair
of amoral grifters has been given a pass by the fawning secular
socialist media so how can they fail? All was so well. So under
control. So Klinton.
Then, like a lightening bolt, appeared a young ultraleft legally black
smiling man of restraint whose only positives were he was not a Klinton
and had no “serious baggage”… or is that the whole list of positives?
What about the pecking order and guilt system of the modern liberal? Do
you really think that has no part in this big surprise? Do you think
pure race has no part? Do you think just being nice (smiling and calm)
has no part?
Are the “race chickens” coming home to roost for the Klintons? Do you
think his far left voting agenda plays no part? Do you think that deep
down many liberals detest the Klintons’ trashing of so many things?
Does the fact that you get an instant “teflon coat” in the general
election by just being Obama play a part? Its not the “war” thing
either… that is just a small lib plus to most.
The more democrats see Obama the less they see the Klintons… the total
sleaze, 900 FBI files and the whole sack of excrement the Klintons
carry around just being themselves.
The 90+% minority vote in the back pocket of the Party cannot be risked
to trash Obama. Talk about “the perfect storm” to drown the Klintons…
to send them home (where is that?). It may be strange and involve two
strident secular socialists but rest assured others are having the same
odd thoughts expressed in this post. The “X Files” of politics played
out before our eyes… or is the hand of God in the mix?
you put The Conservative Crawfish post under a Lame Cherry Post....I don't know if I can take reading them back to back....and I'm out of anything I can smoke so I can tune in to them.
Whoa ..!
Let me piece together the conceptual quotes from above that I'm trying to absorb, so to speak...
"race chickens” coming home legally black in Casablanca, even maybe the Lord has had enough
Maybe it should be read more than once to get the full effect... that is why its a combo of X Files and divine intervention... it seems so errie a way to "take out" the Klintons.
But the Crawfish produces so many Visuals and Pop references you get lost.....I have to stop reading and start interpreting...but like LC, it's a new way of communicating via verbal short hand.
The momentum appears to be with Obama but I have a suspicion that Hillarious may just pip Obama at the post. The Florida and Michigan delegate fiasco has not been resolved. Is it conceivable that only 48 states will choose the Socialist candidate? This issue could yet be resolved in favour of Clinton. The super delegates are likely to have a major role. I would not discount the persuasive powers of Billy, Hilarious and Chelsea.
Either way the Democratic Party is damned. It is split down the middle. If Obama is stymied at the convention the party will be accused of racism. Many African Americans may walk away. Obama would destroy his future election prospects by accepting the Vice Presidential slot. Who would be the real Vice Presidential candidate? Bill Clinton or Obama?
If Clinton fails to win the nomination it is unlikely that the Clinton machine will work too hard for Obama. Beware of a jilted Hillary Clinton who would then set her sights on 2012. If Obama were elected President it is unlikely that Hillarious would ever win the prize she most covets.
Most Dems are torn between the two and will easily accept who ever wins. Dems always vote for their candidates no matter what they do that is against their beliefs. They even vote for them when they are found guilty of scandals and crimes.
Hillary Clinton did very little for John Kerry in 2004 as she wished to be the candidate for 2008. In a tight race this was crucial. John Kerry is now returning the compliment by endorsing Barack Obama. If Clinton fails to secure the nomination her approach will be similar to that adopted in 2004. Can a leopard change its spots?
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
If not Gore...
February 11, 2008 - 06:41 ET by sentforth5The machine will vomit Hellary.
If the questions are. . .
February 11, 2008 - 15:46 ET by CaringwhiteguyWho will win the most states? Who will have the most popular votes? Who will have the most committed delegates, the answer is Obama. But as long as the question is who will win the nomination, the answer is Clinton.
anyone done the math?
February 11, 2008 - 18:15 ET by Ten7sHas anyone done the math? I've not, but my BOTE suggests that Obama will have to get ahead of Hillary by approx. 150-200 raw delegates to overcome the Democrat Super-delegates, not factoring Florida and Michigan, which the DNC will likely seat to give Hillary an added advantage if necessary to ensure her victory. My guess is Hillary (with a good chance of Obama as VP candidate to quell the uprising among the 'Great-unwashed', advertised as Co-Candidates BTW).
→ Bambi for sure
February 11, 2008 - 07:29 ET by Cool ArrowAnticipating the Wicked Witch doing the Spittle on a Griddle Frenzy Dance has got me plum giddy.
"I'm meltiiiing".
♣ a seal
Nah, there's no traditional media bias in the new media!
February 11, 2008 - 07:35 ET by sarcasmoNothin' to see here in the land of "no agenda" at all. Believe what you're told without questioning it and move-along quietly!!
JMR
If this is winning, I think I'd rather lose...
→ sarc
February 11, 2008 - 07:42 ET by Cool ArrowActually, sarc, we just trot Thomas Jefferson out when it suits us. We pick and choose and call it "conservatism".
♣ a seal
Hey, fair's fair.
February 11, 2008 - 07:48 ET by sarcasmoIf NB gets to mock us, we get to mock NB's obvious bias/agenda right-back. I just hope you're looking at the big picture, but if not I'll spell it out in a few words for ya. "That Bob-Dole RINO's gonna lose just like 'it's my turn' Dole lost, especially if the Dems nominate Obama but probably even if they're dumb-enough to leave Hillary on the ticket." The fact that Ron Paul WON'T run 3rd party means we won't be to blame for it, either.
JMR
PS Ya gotta appreciate the fact that I used the MRC's own CNS news service to mock the MRC, right?? ;) It's "the sarcasmo touch," and here's a bonus-URL! Thanks for the "delicious" ammo, MRC!!
If this is winning, I think I'd rather lose...
Although I'm no Ron Paul fan at all...
February 11, 2008 - 09:28 ET by timotheSarcasmo is right. He's probably better than John frigging McCain. I am ashamed of my party.
Paul is better than McCain
February 11, 2008 - 09:34 ET by NewsbusterbrownPaul is better than McCain except for the war, which would still force me to vote for "The Maverick."
Actually, all defense and
February 11, 2008 - 12:29 ET by BDActually, all defense and Foreign Policy questions.....
His stances disqualify him in these areas.
Sarc, With his previous
February 11, 2008 - 09:30 ET by Hunter12Sarc, With his previous positions on illegal immigrants and tax cuts, J McC might have been a better choice for that third spot, but I have to admit I did laugh when I saw the "Ron Paul" in that list. The robot poll poppers should feel proud.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
The "robot" accusation
February 11, 2008 - 09:39 ET by sarcasmoNever seems to jibe with the content of the Daily Paul's herd of cats, but calling names is a lot easier than attacking the only-one left who proposes a cut in spending. I still don't think he has a chance, but the idea that this is funny isn't as powerful, for me, as the idea that it's sad. I think the fact that CPAC attendees literally had to be told not to boo McCain speaks volumes...
JMR
If this is winning, I think I'd rather lose...
Sarc, The humor
February 11, 2008 - 10:00 ET by Hunter12Sarc, The humor arises from putting someone diametrically opposed to the policies of two people rated at or near the top (bottom) on any scale tracking the most liberal votes on every major issue (when they find time to vote) into the same poll, at least for me. Having said that, I never saw Paul as a serious contender for the nomination and I did take a close look at his positions. I think that time will show there was some kind of inflation techniques used by his supporters. I think the technology is there and I think every candidate's campaign uses it to try and skew things.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
If *that's* humor
February 11, 2008 - 10:02 ET by sarcasmoI'm suddenly seeing why some folks here try to argue that "NewsBusted" is actually funny (prepare for this comment to be deleted...).
JMR
If this is winning, I think I'd rather lose...
Humor is often something
February 11, 2008 - 10:18 ET by Hunter12Humor is often something incongruous to context.
Webster's Online:
3 a: that quality which appeals to a sense of the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous b: the mental faculty of discovering, expressing, or appreciating the ludicrous or absurdly incongruous c: something that is or is designed to be comical or amusing.
Man, I'd hate to be standing next to you at the track, if your horse finished out of the money.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
It's a twofer
February 11, 2008 - 10:30 ET by RJTwo of the favorite catechisms of paranoid leftist trolls and Paulites:
1) Newsbusted isn't funny.
2) My posts are being deleted because "they" can't allow my blinding truths to stand.
:^)
The reactions are downright hilarious, though. :)
February 11, 2008 - 11:45 ET by sarcasmo1. Because it isn't funny. There's a reason Jodie Miller's check is a fraction of the size of Steven Colbert's. Free markets rule.
2. Posts I've made that were even a tiny bit critical of "NewsBusted" were indeed deleted. I try to be fair, but conservatives seem intent on proving Balboa's & others' stereotypes regarding humor around here.
JMR
If this is winning, I think I'd rather lose...
That's funny Sarc - I was able to read quite a few of your posts
February 11, 2008 - 12:01 ET by Dee Bunkthat were much more than a tiny bit critical of Newsbusted.
You can't argue comedy. Any intelligent person should know that. If it's funny to me, who the hell cares what you think? Not you sarcasmo, but anyone else. You like it or you don't and someone else disliking it isn't going to affect our opinion of it. In liberal circles it may matter because they are all bandwagon jumpers but you are wasting your time. We all know you don't like it. Are you going to start trying to argue that chocolate isn't the tastiest ice cream? Come on. What a waste of time. We all have different tastes and just because you might not like chocolate ice cream doesn't mean we can't. It's rude to come here and keep harping on something like that.
quite a few have vanished, Dee...
February 11, 2008 - 13:22 ET by sarcasmoAnd if one can't argue comedy, many arguments here about NewsBusted are pointless -- hence my reference to markets & the relative sizes of paychecks. :) And it's not the least bit rude to bust NB's own new-media-bias. Responses here today indicate it's more like "desperately-needed." If the NB masthead were even halfway as honest as you & some others here are about their obvious disdain for Ron Paul, I'd be happy to see the admission of bias. They're not, so to me it sounds a lot like Dan Rather claiming he's got no agenda against Republicans sounds to you. Both dogs don't hunt.
JMR
If this is winning, I think I'd rather lose...
arguments of how to make newsbusted better are fine
February 11, 2008 - 14:14 ET by Dee Bunkbut to argue with someone who thinks it's funny saying it's not is pointless. It's not funny to you - I get that - I'm not going to tell you that it's funny to you and you can't tell anyone else that it's not funny to them. There is no point to you watching it or commenting on it because you don't think it's funny and you never will. It's not your type of thing and that is fine.
Newsbusters is bias and always will be I hope. If I want so called fair and balance I can go to Fox. I don't agree with all of Newsbusters opinions (illegal immigration being the biggest) and I don't run around telling them they are biased on it. They don't claim to be some impartial judge like the media do. I'm biased and your biased we are all biased.
If I want to start my own web site on bias against guest worker programs I can and if you want to start yours on Ron Paul bias you can. Heck we can even put up a forums topic any time we want.
If you want to point out bias against Libertarians on Fox that's different. They are supposed to be "Fair and balanced". Of course it's unrealistic to think that any news organization can give equal time to every point of view and every faction out there. The goal shouldn't be to give certain parties or individuals equal time, but positions. Every position has a left a right and a center and all should be presented by the people who represent the view.
Ron Paul's anti-war position is covered favorably by the media and his fiscal policy and everything else he stands for is misrepresented like it is for the rest of conservatives.
p>
Believe me, if I won the FL Lotto last night
February 11, 2008 - 14:49 ET by sarcasmo($24 million minus immense taxes, but I have yet to check!) you'll see a media bias group bustin' antilibertarian bias so fast it'd literally make your head spin! In the short-term this might help NB, since the very first thing I'd do is try to buy an ad from us.
And I didn't measure it, but I saw no different war/non-war coverage from the media during the Paul-blackout. The "journalists" simply didn't mention the name at all -- kinda like they've done with Keyes, but minus the 100s of Meetup-groups & dozens of straw-poll wins. (For the record, I think NB should have probably covered the media's Keyes-exclusion more, too, even though I don't agree with every single thing Alan says!) What can I say? Being a media-critic makes me a NB-critic, too. I'll get back to blasting old media shortly, I'm sure.
Hmmm. Now I'm mentally stuck in an evil FL Lotto-fantasyland of busting antilibertarian media bias with an actual budget. Hell, I might even be able to tempt Cliff Kincaid away from Accuracy In Media if I offered him enough! ;) And I suspect we vehemently-agree on one thing: Saying "NB has no agenda WRT Paul" is about as hilariously funny as saying "sarcasmo has no agenda..." :)
In fact, I'll make my Paul advice public. I want Ron to negotiate for an hour of prime time to withdraw immediately (accept 45 minutes as a compromise). If I were Paul, I'd make at least 30 minutes of it against a single target: the Department of Education. That's right, I don't think Dr. Paul needs to mention ANY other aspect of the obese government I despise (and you folks know, I hate a lot of obese-government agencies!). Just try, desperately, to get the Republican Party to say they'll keep Ronald Reagan's promise, instead of totally contravening it as they've done. I don't think it's too much to ask, but I also don't think it's very likely to happen.
JMR
If this is winning, I think I'd rather lose...
I liked this post sarc : ) picturing you in your evil FL Lotto
February 11, 2008 - 15:15 ET by Dee Bunkfantasy land made me laugh. I'll tell you, if you do ever win then I hope you will be using it for a candidate I like. ; )
Actually - I may even have to back up on what I said about the war coverage because the media seemed to back off and give a little more favorable (everything is relative though) coverage than they had been in order to propel McCain to victory.
You probably did lose out there overall on the war coverage also. I do feel for you Sarc. You obviously have a lot of enthusiasm and passion and that's a good thing. It's such a hard uphill battle. I wish you luck everywhere but Newsbusters because I like their biased agenda on most things.
sarc -- why do you keep
February 11, 2008 - 10:35 ET by Jack Bauersarc -- why do you keep posting BLANK posts?
Heh.
February 11, 2008 - 11:39 ET by sarcasmoI've seen a lot of posts deleted, but somehow this one remains. I love the reaction to my NB-mocking here being so-similar to the MSM's reaction to NB's own busts, it's just too-funny. And I think the motto of "NewsBusted" might be "where seldom is heard a discouraging word." Delete enough slightly-negative posts, and that's the kind of joke it engenders...
JMR
If this is winning, I think I'd rather lose...
You're being more than a little paranoid, sarky
February 11, 2008 - 12:38 ET by RJLeon's attacks on NewsBusted are much stronger (and more cogent, I might add) than yours....yet they're never deleted.
Maybe the staff has it in for you? :^)
"He was a would-be sharp operator who lacked for the satisfaction of his ambition only the quality of sharpness..." -Michael Chabon, "Gentlemen of the Road"
I doubt that...
February 11, 2008 - 13:27 ET by sarcasmoYou may like Leon's analysis better than mine (who cares?) but I suspect some of his have done the vanishing-act as well. The annoying thing is that the most recent example in question was only mildly-critical of the un-funny-ness, and the main subject of the comment was the largely-UN-discussed topic of Carl Cameron's keeping a secret (or not?) about Fred only-really-wanting the VICE-Presidency (if true?). I think it's an interesting subject, both for the ethical issues of keeping such a secret as a journalist and the possible "black hole" effect on Cameron's own reporting. It was silenced, somewhat stupidly IMO.
JMR
If this is winning, I think I'd rather lose...
Considering them to be more cogent than yours, sarky,
February 11, 2008 - 15:24 ET by RJisn't the same as "liking" them. But I take note of your paranoia on leon's behalf....even though he hasn't mentioned losing any posts to the "censors."
"He was a would-be sharp operator who lacked for the satisfaction of his ambition only the quality of sharpness, and who expended all of his energies on preserving his opinions from contamination." -Michael Chabon, "Gentlemen of the Road"
Nice try with the quotes, RJ
February 13, 2008 - 03:15 ET by sarcasmoBut YOU'RE the only one using the c-word in this tiff, and I'd bet my "paranoia" strongly-resembles the truth in Leon's case since it's the (somewhat stupid-looking on NB's part, as I've said) truth in my case. Once-again, we're not-discussing Carl Cameron's possible ethical issue regarding Thompson secret-keeping/reporting.
That NB's editors dimwittedly-deleted an on-topic (and not even all that critical of NewsBusted's manifest un-funnyness!) comment of mine is beyond question. Why not discuss the Fox News "professional's" ethical issue instead of leaving it cloaked? Beats me.
JMR
If this is winning, I think I'd rather lose...
Work with me, here, sarky
February 13, 2008 - 08:47 ET by RJI know you pride yourself in marching to a different drummer, but try to retain some hold on reality. Are you claiming that having a post deleted is not "censorship?"
And, just for the record, I think it's outrageous and unfair that NB is deleting your negative reviews of NewsBusted while leaving Leon's up. Like I said, NB obviously has it in for you and Libertarians. No wonder you're paranoid....(sarc off). :^)
"He was a would-be sharp operator who lacked for the satisfaction of his ambition only the quality of sharpness..." -Michael Chabon, "Gentlemen of the Road"
The management reported
February 11, 2008 - 12:42 ET by Jack BauerThe management reported edition 137 was the #1 viewed on YouTube it's first day up, with over 300,000 hits.
Somebody must have heard it sarc.
What Cut In Spending?
February 11, 2008 - 10:17 ET by TinianRon Paul is a "do as I say, not as I do" porker:
This one, oh purveyor of double-standards.
February 11, 2008 - 13:42 ET by sarcasmoPaul's negative 150.1 Billion isn't the same as McCain's positive 6.9 Billion.
JMR
If this is winning, I think I'd rather lose...
Robots Revealed
February 11, 2008 - 10:47 ET by Hunter12Sarc, Here's what I found on robots, when I went looking for info after this came out the first time:
The University of Alabama-Birmingham's computer forensics research department, which collects spam messages as part of its Spam Data Mining for Law Enforcement Applications project, analyzes hundreds of thousands of e-mail messages per month. When it began getting bombarded with e-mails about Ron Paul immediately following a Republican debate on TV, the lab began to examine their origin and saw consistent patterns that it described as "disturbing."
The e-mails originated from IPs all over the world, but researchers' suspicions were aroused when they found that the e-mails purported to come from different countries than their IPs indicated. Messages claiming to come from the US were actually coming from Korea, for example, and messages claiming to come from Italy were actually coming from the US. The pattern showed that the messages were clearly not coming from Ron Paul's official campaign, but rather illegitimate spam operations and botnets.
"We've seen many previous e-mails reported as spam from other campaigns or parties, but when we've investigated them, they all were sent from the legitimate parties," department director Gary Warner said in a statement. In contrast, the Ron Paul messages clearly came from a number of other parties attempting to spoof where they came from. Paul's campaign may run afoul of the authorities as a result of these e-mails. Warner believes that the messages may violate the CAN-SPAM Act due to their deceptive sending practices.
The Ron Paul camp, however, wants to make sure the world knows it's not involved in the spam. "This is the first I've heard about this situation," Ron Paul spokesman Jesse Benton told Wired. "If it is true, it could be done by a well-intentioned yet misguided supporter or someone with bad intentions trying to embarrass the campaign. Either way, this is independent work, and we have no connection."
I'm not saying UAB might not be a hotbed of liberal kooks looking to trash a GOP candidate or that Paul knew there were people out there doing this, but there is some info out there on people who were spamming polls for Pauls' benefit.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
Agreed on the spamming...
February 11, 2008 - 11:42 ET by sarcasmoBut as regards the "for Paul's benefit" part, your "proof" is sorely lacking. Do you actually assume spam whose sole purpose was apparently to attack kick-ass YouTube posts by RP supporters was to the benefit of RP? If so, how??
JMR
If this is winning, I think I'd rather lose...
Tsk, tsk....
February 11, 2008 - 12:28 ET by Hunter12Where in the post I put up does it say anything about YouTube? I think what UAB was questioning was probably emails voting for who won some televised debate, since that is where the claim of spammed origins came in: "bombarded with e-mails about Ron Paul immediately following a Republican debate on TV" . One might think you're trying to strawman my post, Sarc.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
Nowhere.
February 11, 2008 - 13:31 ET by sarcasmoBut the spam attack was well covered on the Daily Paul, and that was the purpose of the spams. And emails didn't vote, text phones did. No strawman, just making sure you're accurate about the original source of the spam & especially who paid for it, both of which you don't know.
JMR
If this is winning, I think I'd rather lose...
Sarc, "If the foo...., Wear it."
February 11, 2008 - 13:01 ET by Hunter12More documentation on Robots:
"Spam supporting presidential hopeful Ron Paul filled inboxes this week as zombie computers spewed thousands of messages to recipients, according to spam experts. The spam supporting Paul was sent using the same illegal spam methods used to distribute masculinity enhancement products and pump-and-dump penny stock schemes.
...
Accusations that supporters of Paul are using spammy tactics to promote the candidate don't stop with e-mail. The suspicious point out that Paul garners a disproportionate amount of support online (as measured by Web-based polls, mentions in blogs, and frequency of Web searches conducted by users related to "Ron Paul") compared to voter interest polls conducted offline. That fact may suggest Paul's online supporters are stuffing the virtual ballot by voting early and often at political polling Web sites.
Benton chalks up the lopsided support online verses offline by noting that Paul has won some of the tech savvy-voters by supporting issues such as an Internet unfettered by government regulation."
Again, please note that I'm not accusing the Paul campaign directly, but who benefits from such tatcics is obvious.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
Yep, other candidates.
February 11, 2008 - 13:33 ET by sarcasmoWhen a variety of excellent Ron Paul YouTube videos were taken-down due to the spam in question. This was well covered on the Daily Paul, and the trolls there made the same baseless accusations but could not back 'em up either, especially in view of the facts/consequences.
JMR
If this is winning, I think I'd rather lose...
Sarc, Excuse me, but your
February 11, 2008 - 14:04 ET by Hunter12Sarc, Excuse me, but your source that these claims are baseless is not exactly unbiased. The "Daily Paul" says it isn't so, so it isn't so. I'm going to go out on a limb here and speculate that the "Paul" in there is Ron Paul. That may be a crazy assumption. When I was ten and threw that rock through a window at my house, my parents didn't believe my denials. They felt I was not a reliable source to exculpate me. I've given you two sources in print. I haven't seen any libel suits by Ron Paul against either of the sources I've sited (although his status as a congressman are keeping a few from being filed against him), so I would say the ball is firmly in your court to find a site from somewhere unrelated to Congressman Paul's efforts to disprove my contention that there are robots being used by people who support him and that these robotic actions have been to his benefit. Again, I don't claim he is involved, just that he has received a disportionate amount recognition or acclaim from these action.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
Neither is NewsBusters.
February 11, 2008 - 14:19 ET by sarcasmoAnd your sources don't try to draw the same conclusion as you're desperately trying to draw here via the absence of libel suits from a public figure. I don't care if the Daily Paul is related to Paul, I care that the explanation of the spammer's motives I saw there (getting rid of YouTube videos, which like it or not was the main effect of the spam) is better than yours, because it is.
You have 0 proof people who support Paul did this, and I've offered YouTube video banning examples of why that's both improbable & illogical, and therefore quite likely was Paul's OPPONENTS, despite the various accusations. The 10 year old analogy is particularly-lame in this instance where accusation-becomes-proof. No outside sources needed, you've simply been refuted, unless you can find a way to argue that spam gives a candidate anything resembling positive recognition or acclaim while interfering with supportive YouTube videos.
JMR
If this is winning, I think I'd rather lose...
Sarc, The only link I see
February 11, 2008 - 15:34 ET by Hunter12Sarc, The only link I see to anything in any of the stuff you've posted in this thread is in your tagline. I didn't realize you were editing your signature block with reference supporting your position in each post.
I'm not trying to draw any conclusion from what I've linked to in this thread beyond these two points, which I haven't seen you refute: 1). There was evidence of email from singular IPs claiming to have originated from multiple addresses. 2). The message bodies of said emails were in support of Ron Paul. If the best you have is "Ron says" we may as well end this discussion. I never claimed Congressman Paul was involved, because there is no evidence to support that, but if someone pays for my dinner, I benefit from having eaten dinner and from not having to pay for it myself. The initial label of "robot poll poppers" must have struck a nerve. If you can't post a Paul link due to site restrictions, give me a search string that will locate your evidence and I'll do my own search.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
Huh?
February 12, 2008 - 11:14 ET by sarcasmoMy tagline hasn't changed in this thread, AFAIK, and I looked.
I don't dispute (1.) but (2.) has already been refuted. The purpose, and it worked for a few days, was to make effective YouTube videos disappear due to spam complaints. If I were to secretly pay a Romanian spammer to bombard the 'net with thousands of positive-sounding messages about NewsBusters, how exactly would that criminal act benefit NewsBusters?
No link is needed, if you can answer that question in bold honestly you'll have answered yourself for me. I have a bit of experience in this area, which is why I've said this. In fact, it might be interesting to see if a specially tailored spam could make a NewsBusted episode unavailable in the same spammy way, but that would be an illegal/unethical way of proving my point.
JMR
If this is winning, I think I'd rather lose...
Sarc, Sorry for the delay.
February 13, 2008 - 08:22 ET by Hunter12I wasn't conceding your point. I was on vacation. This will be my final post on this subject. You're strawmanning me with some YouTube spamming crapola. The orignal contention of my post was that the popularity of Congressman Paul was inflated by botnet postings after the Republican debates last fall, as was alluded to in my first link in the posts above. Here is the title of the content of a link embedded in that link: "'Criminal' Botnet Stumps for Ron Paul, Researchers Allege ". Look, no mention of YouTube or why videos should be pulled from it. It says a bunch of emails claiming to be from individuals saying "Ron Paul won the debate..." turned out to be from single IPs. That means one machine sent multiple votes for Ron. How does that help Ron Paul? It makes him look more popular than he really is. Does that translate to more campaign contributions? I don't know. My "robot poll poppers" label is set in concrete. Again, I didn't say it was Ron at his keyboard doing the spamming. I have a huge tree in my backyard. I didn't plant it, but I sure enjoy the shade.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
Sarc Paul
February 11, 2008 - 07:54 ET by Six String SpiffSarc, you have to be Ron Paul himself. Why else would you bang you head against the wall in support for a very FINE man, but not a winner. All of this rubbish about him winning elections is tired. VERY tired. I have conceded that The GOP has had a 'makeover' if you will and it will take quite a few years to get back on track. HOWEVER, my promise remains. If McCain is the Nominee, I'm voting for Barack. Our country cannot survive another Clinton Presidency. I want to see that b*tch IMPLODE. I want to see her lose in a BIG way. I want her to divorce Bill and have all the Clintons dissolve. What a glorious day that will be!
Huh?? where did I say he'd win the Presidency?
February 11, 2008 - 07:58 ET by sarcasmoI'm just mocking NB as usual when NB's biased against libertarians, but you've illustrated "sarcasmo hallucination syndrome" here. If NB had STFU & not started it, they'd not be mocked. They didn't STFU, so I mocked NB with a CNS url. And then I found another one. This is my role, so please get used to it.
JMR
PS For the record, if I were Paul (and I'm definitely-not, or he'd have run the campaign differently!) I'd be negotiating with the party-officials who hate me for a prime-time speech. Then I'd spend pretty-much the entire rant attacking the bloated Department of Education & desperately trying to make my party consider keeping Reagan's promise regarding same.
If this is winning, I think I'd rather lose...
Sarc, I don't understand
February 11, 2008 - 09:42 ET by NewsbusterbrownSarc, I don't understand why you think you're mocking NB when the links you provided are not endorsements from them, CNS or MRC but from Paul himself stating that he's the only true conservative.
If you found something like Brent Bozell stating that Paul was the only true conservative out there now, then you would have made a good point.
BTW, I didn't find the Paul joke for this thread that funny. He's obviously conservative and then some on certain issues.
You may not see the mocking...
February 11, 2008 - 09:46 ET by sarcasmoBut I sure-do! NB regulars don't like it when I bust NB's bias. This is nothing new, but it's nothing different from the old media. Bozell's opinion/endorsement is entirely irrelevant in this case, CNS was obviously-enough.
JMR
If this is winning, I think I'd rather lose...
Bozell's
February 11, 2008 - 09:53 ET by NewsbusterbrownBozell's opinion/endorsement is entirely irrelevant in this case, CNS was obviously-enough.
Again, why is it enough? Your attempt at mockery only works if you pinpoint where a Bozell organization contradict themselves over Paul. You obviously didn't here.
But I sure-do! NB regulars don't like it when I bust NB's bias. This is nothing new, but it's nothing different from the old media.
Since NB is upfront with their contempt for libertarians, what are you actually busting?
I don't agree with their viewpoint, BTW, since libertarians make excellent points in many areas, but they are entitled to beat up anyone they want.
Your denial only works...
February 11, 2008 - 09:59 ET by sarcasmoIf Bozell's not at all related to CNC/MRC. Good luck making that point! ;)
And Mr. Sheffield has claimed "no agenda" in past busts I've done on these entirely-meaningless polls. It seems you, Dee Bunk, and I all agree on NB's agenda, which you described quite-well, but it seems the NB masthead somehow differs, no? I'm entitled to mock back when they try to mock us, so I did, and IMO it's workin'.
JMR
If this is winning, I think I'd rather lose...
We are upfront about one thing
February 11, 2008 - 16:18 ET by Matthew SheffieldRon Paul is either a racist or too incompetant to prevent his own newsletters from being run by them. Such people have no place in the conservative or the libertarian world.
The latter statement is borne out by the fact that the intellectual wing of the libertarian movement (with whom I was having cocktails last Saturday at Reason HQ) has rejected Paul out of hand.
We have no anti-libertarian bias. We have an anti-wacko bias.
Hear Hear!
February 11, 2008 - 16:25 ET by BDHear Hear!
I think you've only proved
February 12, 2008 - 11:08 ET by sarcasmoA pro-name-calling bias, as has BD. (And for the record, I was among the Wendy McElroy crowd which wanted & didn't get a purge.) I think the issue was used as an excuse for media bias that was already-clearly-there in the old and new media. Others have admitted the obvious agenda, whether or not you're willing to, anyway. Assume the newsletter issue had not happened: I think we'd have seen the same biased agenda both here and in the rest of the media, since we saw it before I knew anything about 'em. In fact, I was busting antilibertarian bias singlehandedly here a year before Paul even ran.
And speaking of "no place in the conservative...world," if you think the present Republican candidate is somehow free of racist-speech (let alone wackiness...) issues, you're in the same double-standard fantasyland as "Tinian." Just wait for the Democrats to dredge up some of his "straight talk," which might even be on videotape for all I know. I repeat, NB hasn't been anything-like balanced or fair on this one any more than the rest of the MSM. And your reference to cocktails with the cosmotarian set is unintentionally-funny, too. Reason is far from the only source of intellectuals in libertarian-land, and being inside the Beltway doesn't make them a bit smarter.
JMR
If this is winning, I think I'd rather lose...
Barry Libb
February 11, 2008 - 08:08 ET by VT Con ManWhy aren't we hearing about his liberal agenda???
Ssshhhh......
February 11, 2008 - 10:11 ET by Hunter12"Hope, Change, Hope, Change, Hope, Change."
He hasn't stated a national agenda beyond the recurring chant.
I loved Hannity asking his supporters to state an accomplishment. They couldn't do it. You really can't blame them, he's only been a senator for three years, and he's been running for president for two of them. When you consider, he probably spent the first year learning how to get around DC and where the bathrooms in the Senate where, he hasn't had much time to set an agenda.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
Specifics?
February 11, 2008 - 11:37 ET by iveseenitallRight,Hunter12. However, I'm afraid we are at the point to which this country has been coming for a long time. Many (especially the young) I speak to do not know the issues and most truly don't care. It's sad. Our educational system and the media have combined to create an ignorant country, obsessed with money and pleasure. Basic values are no longer "in vogue" as we go the way of so many other nations throughout history. The idea that a man with no experience can come this close to the presidency by saying absolutely nothing specific speaks volumes about where we are. Ignorance is bliss and the charlatans know it.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
Saying nothing is part of the strategy
February 11, 2008 - 13:39 ET by Hunter12I would hazzard to guess that the majority of people in this country still get their news and political insight from CBS, NBC, and ABC. It's a world of buzzwords and images. Liberal professors in colleges and liberal rock stars and movie actors are where our youth are getting their information on who to support. The young don't understand that they're getting a message from people who either don't practice what they preach or are just as uneducated and naive as their audience is. Look at Babs Streisand. She endorses HRC. Does anyone ever expect they'll see their name ahead of Babs on a transplant list when HillaryCare is implemented? And please stay off her beach. Bono is out there preaching how America should spend their wealth while he hides his from his home country of Ireland. Maybe the tax rates are excessive over there. I don't know, but when someone with a couple hundred million looses a hundred million, they still have a hundred million left. Image is everything, just don't look too close.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." - Sir Winston Churchill
.
February 11, 2008 - 08:31 ET by general companyRP,,,,? I just could not vote for the other 2
"Always do right. This will gratify some people, and astonish the rest". Mark Twain
Not that he didn't really have a choice
February 11, 2008 - 09:06 ET by Prester John....but I find it somewhat ironic that Obama speaks at a dinner that honors a slave owner (Jefferson) and an indian killer (Jackson).
RP The Rocky Mountain
February 11, 2008 - 09:28 ET by wiwfRP
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy
On with the wars
February 11, 2008 - 09:46 ET by VonuHad we not been at war RP would have done much better, of course the neo cons figured this out long ago, hence the war and the next war and the war after that. Congrats guys, you smoked us.
Freedom is a vital component of human effectiveness and fulfillment.
Are you saying that the US
February 11, 2008 - 16:27 ET by BDAre you saying that the US went to war because the conservative movement knew Ron Paul was gonna run for President?
Firemission... Wackjob in the open!
It will be Obama***
February 11, 2008 - 10:46 ET by Barker***Unless the Clinton machine makes a national ad buy for this guy.
Does it really matter?
February 11, 2008 - 11:40 ET by jpm100Does it really matter?
Of Course the RP haters
February 11, 2008 - 12:01 ET by BinxlyOf Course the RP haters gotta get their jabs in. Immaturity and examples of the big baby attitude some have to him is even further illustrated by this. Im not so much offended, its just laughable how I post about conservative-driven bias and then *boom* here we are.
Just an aside, Ron Paul is the only true conservative still campaigning for the POTUS. To say he's getting the Dem nod is not only laughable but really harkens to the ignorance to whomever posted it. Good for a laugh no doubt, but if we're playing fair here, the race is more like everyone BUT Ron Paul is running for the DNC nod, especially given McCain's rather liberal leanings and close ties to some of the most despicable liberals in Washington.
isolationist
February 11, 2008 - 12:17 ET by mbuelYou're right, he's the only true isolationist er.. conservative running.
Binxly,
February 11, 2008 - 12:40 ET by R D HelmRon Paul is the only true conservative still campaigning for the POTUS.
I agree. And if it were not for his ill-conceived, head-in-the-sand isolationism, which would be fatal to this country given the times we live in, instead of sitting here typing this response, I would be out there campaigning for the man at this very moment.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
Just being "conservative" doesn't make RP a good POTUS candidate
February 11, 2008 - 12:49 ET by RJAs for "getting jabs in", if you want end that, maybe you could suggest to him that he stop making himself so target-rich with some of the ridiculous things he says.
"He was a would-be sharp operator who lacked for the satisfaction of his ambition only the quality of sharpness..." -Michael Chabon, "Gentlemen of the Road"
lol I dont mind when people
February 11, 2008 - 13:11 ET by Binxlylol I dont mind when people take him to task over things they disagree with him on, quite the contrary. I only get annoyed when people take shots at him in areas where its completely unrelated. This posted poll is just a low blow and speaks of a sour puss attitude. RP can't get the Repub's nomination so why do people still feel the need to tear him up when the topic isnt even relative to him?
Thats all. If you dislike his foreign policy or fiscal plans, by all means, go to task with it. However, when talking about something that has NOTHING to do with him (democrats and liberals) its just childish and stupid to try and equate him to that. That's like asking in the 80's who would become the new leader for Russia before the collapse of Communism, Ronald Reagan or Mikhail Gorbachev.
Funny, I see this as a target-rich environment, myself.
February 11, 2008 - 13:35 ET by sarcasmoSee various posts on this thread which tend to prove my point. And thanks for not-denying there are Ron Paul haters here, that's a step forward!
JMR
If this is winning, I think I'd rather lose...
the war
February 11, 2008 - 12:16 ET by mbuelThe war isn't the end all of issues is it?
There were SEVERAL small government conservatives that would've made better candidates than McLame, and were better on foreign policy than Ru Paul. The "base" chose a liberal though.
Rush is right.
#1) We can't afford to let either Hillary or Obama to win. Hillary for obvious reasons, and Obama because IMO (not Rush's) HE IS a mirror image of other charismatic leaders from the past. I'm not going to mention names, you can watch their pre-election speeches and contrast and compare on your own.
#2) McLame WILL change the republican party. But the democrats went for their base this election cycle, the nutroots that read Chomsky and collect every word he speaks like it's the gospel. The american loving democrats are going to verbally support Obama/Hillary (whichever is elected) then vote for McLame.
....ummm...you could of
February 11, 2008 - 12:27 ET by bigtimer....ummm...you could of added McCain to this list.
LOL!
I picked Obama...he is going to win if Hillary doesn't get away with cheating like she is poised to do with Florida and Michigan.
Excellent point BT!
February 11, 2008 - 12:32 ET by Dee Bunkor the question should be who will win the SECOND democrat nomination?
Our General is really going to just be like another Dem Primary.
bt,
February 11, 2008 - 12:34 ET by R D HelmI think you nailed it there.
LOL.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
Actually, the dims nominating Ron Paul might not be a bad
February 11, 2008 - 12:32 ET by R D HelmActually, the dims nominating Ron Paul might not be a bad idea. Currently, B. Hussein Obama and Broom Hilda are tearing the guts out of the party. Maybe he would be a stabilizing force. :-^)
I think Barack Hussein Obama will be the nominee for the democrats.
*BTW-If we could elect two presidents simultaineously, I would vote for Paul's domestic agenda in a second, but I would want someone else in the CIC's chair.
None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe
Ron Paul
February 11, 2008 - 13:15 ET by PawpawNSeems Ron Paul gets more votes as a DIM than as a Repub!
See BT's post
February 11, 2008 - 13:37 ET by sarcasmoMcAmnesty's not in the running on this one...
JMR
If this is winning, I think I'd rather lose...
Brilliant question
February 11, 2008 - 13:28 ET by Lame CherryKey word is WIN the nomination and the answer is no one will win the DNC nomination. It will be AWARDED.
John Edwards said it would be a brokered convention of super delegates.
Howard Dean announced already that "if no one wins the election in 2 months he will set down in a meeting AND CHOOSE THE NOMINEE".
Lowell Ponte brilliantly laid out this entire scenario last year in a brokered convention and Al Gore being chosen.
Until things change like Patrick Fitzgerald is fired so he does not have his already sealed indictment of Barak Obama to Hillary being given a Presidential pardon by George W. Bush for all crimes forever..............I will maintain what the cartel has been pushing and that is a brokered convention from a fractured party system with Al Gore promoted as the savior of America as everyone else is in jail or about about to be.
I fully expect his buddy Mike Bloomberglobalist to be his "former Democrat reformed Republican" to be the ticket.
With goofy Dr. Strangecain being used to fracture the GOP with liberal Huckabee and the grinning Ron Paul anti Semite anti Christian........well John McCain stalking a woman on Saturday Night Live is about all it is going to take for the Goldwater atomic bomb commercial to give America a Hugh Chavez el presidente with 23% of the vote.
The cartel pulls this crap in every nation around the world where there is not a Putin to murder all the competition. That is how they cement power.
Obama is a dunce. Hillary a shrew...........the DNC doesn't want these clowns but fights over who to vote for in the lesser of evils.
Same is true with liberal McCain and liberal Huckabee.
This is a great trick question again, but I did not vote as one can not vote for what can not happen.
How about it Newsbusters putting up the real question of Lynn Cheney as Vice President to unite the Conservatives behind McCain, tank Huckabee and put someone on the ticket we can trust to keep Strangecain in line.
Fix this besides busting the liberals as this GOP is in need of uniting and fixing.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Delegate tally
February 11, 2008 - 14:39 ET by ChaitealoverI saw a delegate tally last night that indicated that Mike Gravel was still in the race [0 delegates, but has not withdrawn]. Shouldn't he have been listed on this poll? :o)
Chai
“...Bury me on my face,” said Diogenes; and when he was asked why, he replied, “Because in a little while everything will be turned upside down.”
IS OBAMA "HEAVEN SENT"?
February 11, 2008 - 20:56 ET by reelman46IS OBAMA “HEAVEN SENT”?
Turn
back the clock a year. We were told the Klintons were going to continue
their magic (aka sleaze) and another 8 years was just destiny. As
Bogart said in Casablanca, “looks like destiny took a hand”… or maybe
even divine providence, even maybe the Lord has had enough. This pair
of amoral grifters has been given a pass by the fawning secular
socialist media so how can they fail? All was so well. So under
control. So Klinton.
Then, like a lightening bolt, appeared a young ultraleft legally black
smiling man of restraint whose only positives were he was not a Klinton
and had no “serious baggage”… or is that the whole list of positives?
What about the pecking order and guilt system of the modern liberal? Do
you really think that has no part in this big surprise? Do you think
pure race has no part? Do you think just being nice (smiling and calm)
has no part?
Are the “race chickens” coming home to roost for the Klintons? Do you
think his far left voting agenda plays no part? Do you think that deep
down many liberals detest the Klintons’ trashing of so many things?
Does the fact that you get an instant “teflon coat” in the general
election by just being Obama play a part? Its not the “war” thing
either… that is just a small lib plus to most.
The more democrats see Obama the less they see the Klintons… the total
sleaze, 900 FBI files and the whole sack of excrement the Klintons
carry around just being themselves.
The 90+% minority vote in the back pocket of the Party cannot be risked
to trash Obama. Talk about “the perfect storm” to drown the Klintons…
to send them home (where is that?). It may be strange and involve two
strident secular socialists but rest assured others are having the same
odd thoughts expressed in this post. The “X Files” of politics played
out before our eyes… or is the hand of God in the mix?
Doug Schexnayder, Ph.D. (theconservativecrawfish)
Hold on there Reelman...I don't think I can take it
February 11, 2008 - 21:07 ET by JayTeeyou put The Conservative Crawfish post under a Lame Cherry Post....I don't know if I can take reading them back to back....and I'm out of anything I can smoke so I can tune in to them.
Whoa ..!
Let me piece together the conceptual quotes from above that I'm trying to absorb, so to speak...
"race chickens” coming home legally black in Casablanca, even maybe the Lord has had enough
YOU MAY NEED TO READ IT AGAIN, SLOWLY
February 11, 2008 - 21:33 ET by reelman46Maybe it should be read more than once to get the full effect... that is why its a combo of X Files and divine intervention... it seems so errie a way to "take out" the Klintons.
Doug Schexnayder, Ph.D. (theconservativecrawfish)
I've admired the Crawfish...and LC on occaision
February 11, 2008 - 21:51 ET by JayTeeBut the Crawfish produces so many Visuals and Pop references you get lost.....I have to stop reading and start interpreting...but like LC, it's a new way of communicating via verbal short hand.
thanks for the Post....from CCF
Reelman.. and I think Obama is going to do it
February 11, 2008 - 21:55 ET by JayTeehe's gonna snuff the Klintons....and it's all about race in the Democratic party.
Momentum with Obama but..
February 12, 2008 - 08:24 ET by johnbarryThe momentum appears to be with Obama but I have a suspicion that Hillarious may just pip Obama at the post. The Florida and Michigan delegate fiasco has not been resolved. Is it conceivable that only 48 states will choose the Socialist candidate? This issue could yet be resolved in favour of Clinton. The super delegates are likely to have a major role. I would not discount the persuasive powers of Billy, Hilarious and Chelsea.
Either way the Democratic Party is damned. It is split down the middle. If Obama is stymied at the convention the party will be accused of racism. Many African Americans may walk away. Obama would destroy his future election prospects by accepting the Vice Presidential slot. Who would be the real Vice Presidential candidate? Bill Clinton or Obama?
If Clinton fails to win the nomination it is unlikely that the Clinton machine will work too hard for Obama. Beware of a jilted Hillary Clinton who would then set her sights on 2012. If Obama were elected President it is unlikely that Hillarious would ever win the prize she most covets.
the Obama Clinton race isn't fracturing the Dem party
February 12, 2008 - 08:50 ET by Dee BunkMost Dems are torn between the two and will easily accept who ever wins. Dems always vote for their candidates no matter what they do that is against their beliefs. They even vote for them when they are found guilty of scandals and crimes.
Hillary Clinton and John Kerry another hidden split
February 12, 2008 - 09:53 ET by johnbarryHillary Clinton did very little for John Kerry in 2004 as she wished to be the candidate for 2008. In a tight race this was crucial. John Kerry is now returning the compliment by endorsing Barack Obama. If Clinton fails to secure the nomination her approach will be similar to that adopted in 2004. Can a leopard change its spots?