Right-winger declares that Obama is really a Muslim

[HardRCafé]

Actually she's way better looking than Ann Coulter.  Not that that says anything at all.

Have you thought about laser surgery?

[HardRCafé]

I'm with TNM there. If Obama wins the nomination it'll be the first time since 1960 that the Democrats have a candidate they can be genuinely enthusiastic about,

Don't forget '72!

[Michael Z]

I'm with TNM there. If Obama wins the nomination it'll be the first time since 1960 that the Democrats have a candidate they can be genuinely enthusiastic about,

Don't forget '72!

I mean all of the party as opposed to just the hard left wing.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I'm with TNM there. If Obama wins the nomination it'll be the first time since 1960 that the Democrats have a candidate they can be genuinely enthusiastic about,

Don't forget '72!

I mean all of the party as opposed to just the hard left wing.

Ah but Michael, the Uber-left wing will always complain unless one of their own gets the nomination, or will return to worshipping Ralph Nader. It's a scientific fact.

[Gabu]

Well not give up, I am just leary of running people from states that are blue nationwide.

Do you know what defines a "blue state" in general?  It's a state that voted for the Democrat in the last presidential election.  If George Bush won in a landslide in 2004 and carried Illinois, would you then be okay with Obama because he was from a red state?  Was Bill Clinton a bad candidate in 1996 since he came from Arkansas, at the time a "blue state"?

People win an election because they're a good candidate, not because they're from some particular state.  The fact that George Bush was from the heavily Republican state of Texas didn't exactly harm his ability to win elections, despite the fact that he was from a "red state", which by your logic should be a bad thing for a Republican candidate.

[Joe Republic]

Well not give up, I am just leary of running people from states that are blue nationwide.

Do you know what defines a "blue state" in general?  It's a state that voted for the Democrat in the last presidential election.  If George Bush won in a landslide in 2004 and carried Illinois, would you then be okay with Obama because he was from a red state?  Was Bill Clinton a bad candidate in 1996 since he came from Arkansas, at the time a "blue state"?

People win an election because they're a good candidate, not because they're from some particular state.  The fact that George Bush was from the heavily Republican state of Texas didn't exactly harm his ability to win elections, despite the fact that he was from a "red state", which by your logic should be a bad thing for a Republican candidate.

I certainly agree with you, but tactically speaking, it's not the best strategy.  But then it's not like you can choose what state you call your political home.  Unless you're Hillary Clinton that is, but apparently she wasn't reading from the same playbook.

[Gabu]

I certainly agree with you, but tactically speaking, it's not the best strategy.  But then it's not like you can choose what state you call your political home.  Unless you're Hillary Clinton that is, but apparently she wasn't reading from the same playbook.

I was half simply arguing against using the results of the previous election to define the worth of someone from that state as a candidate in the next election.  I hate the terms "red state" and "blue state".

[HardRCafé]

Do you know what defines a "blue state" in general?  It's a state that voted for the Democrat in the last presidential election.  If George Bush won in a landslide in 2004 and carried Illinois, would you then be okay with Obama because he was from a red state?  Was Bill Clinton a bad candidate in 1996 since he came from Arkansas, at the time a "blue state"?

Illinois is not just any blue state.  There is no longer any Republican elected statewide.

[tarheel-leftist85]

I think we're going to see a lot of talk about how we should nominate Obama and/or Hillary b/c they aren't white males--and are thus, more Democratic than, say, a John Edwards or Russ Feingold.  I think this is illegitimate, and a concerted effort by the DLC and "liberal" media--and this is coming from a person that supports affirmative action, and civil rights legislation 100%.  All you have to do is look at Vernon Robinson and Alan Keyes to realize that choosing the person with the right face or right chromosome will automatically confer liberal policies.  So basically, this is an effort to get neo-liberal America to feel guilty and vote for a Goldwater Girl or person who relies on corporate coddling to fly here and there and everywhere to talk about their bipartisanship--even if they only perpetuate the disaster of Reaganomics and Randian me-ism of the past decades.  I'll vote for a black person and a woman--Harvey Gantt and Barbara Boxer immediately come to mind--oooh! but their too liberal [gasps]!

[Deano963]

Do you know what defines a "blue state" in general?  It's a state that voted for the Democrat in the last presidential election.  If George Bush won in a landslide in 2004 and carried Illinois, would you then be okay with Obama because he was from a red state?  Was Bill Clinton a bad candidate in 1996 since he came from Arkansas, at the time a "blue state"?

Illinois is not just any blue state.  There is no longer any Republican elected statewide.

Ah, so in addition to being a "blue state", Illinois can also be classified as a "smart state".

[Beet]

Do you know what defines a "blue state" in general?  It's a state that voted for the Democrat in the last presidential election.  If George Bush won in a landslide in 2004 and carried Illinois, would you then be okay with Obama because he was from a red state?  Was Bill Clinton a bad candidate in 1996 since he came from Arkansas, at the time a "blue state"?

Illinois is not just any blue state.  There is no longer any Republican elected statewide.

Ah, so in addition to being a "blue state", Illinois can also be classified as a "smart state".

Errr, I think it's more like "state containing the city of Chicago"

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

What I mean is this:

Democrats are still in a geographical crisis. The core blue states such as Illinois, New York, Michigan, Massachusetts are set to lose electoral votes. So my theory is that Democrats must pick a nominee from a red state that could trend our way (i.e. colorado, arizona, new mexico, nevada, notice a pattern here) to expand our electoral base, presidentially.

The Republicans rarely nominate someone from a Democratic state. The only times that the state was to the left of the country as a whole in the previous election in modern times were Nixon 1960 and Ford 1976. Both lost.

[TheresNoMoney]

They don't need to. They have a firmer, and grower Presidential base.

? Can someone translate this sentence into sensical English?

[Deano963]

They don't need to. They have a firmer, and grower Presidential base.

I am pretty sure that Down killed james and is now posting under his identity. There can be no other explanation for this word fart.

[Tender Branson]

I think Obama is doomed with that god-awful name of his.  First name that rhymes with "Iraq", middle name "Hussein", last name rhymes with "Osama"

...sorry, but I have a pessimistic view on human nature

Way too pessimistic !

If the US electorate associates the name of a Presidential Candidate with a Terrorist, a Dictator and a f***ed-up country rather than with his views and accomplishments, then they are better represented in the White House by a seeing-eye dog. I´m sure the dog is more adequate for the job ... 

[Joe Biden 2020]

Just because we won the 2006 elections does not mean 2008 will be just as easy.

What I am saying is this. The 2004 Red States, on average, gave Bush more solid support then the 2004 Blue States. Because some core blue states are expected to lose votes, its important that we make inroads to western states that are actually growing. sheesh.

James

I agree, James.  I've got a feeling that a more centrist Republican will win the White House in 2008, though it could go either way.  I'm basing that on the candidates that both parties are putting up and based on history from 20 years ago.  Now, I know that Ronald Reagan didn't take us into an ill-advised war in Iraq, but he did have the last decade of the Cold War.  The candidates that the Democrats are putting up, namely, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama aren't the best candidates in my opinion.  Hillary has too much baggage, and Barack has too little experience, especially when foreign policy experience is gravely needed at a time like this.  The other candidates are either not well known enough, or they are a political has-been (John Edwards).  The Republicans are not doing so great, either, though in their candidates.  John McCain is too old and not in good health, Rudy Guiliani and Mitt Romney are too liberal to win the Republican nomination.

I do hope the Democrats take the White House in 2008, but gut feeling tells me we will have to wait until 2012 to get the White House back.  Of course, I don't want the Democrats with complete control over all three areas of Government, President, Senate, House.  So, if the Democrats retain control of Congress in 2008, the Republicans had better win the White House in 2008.  If the Republicans take over either chamber of Congres, then the Democrats need to win the White House.

[TheresNoMoney]

People like TheresNoMoney don't realize that the Census could hurt us.

Ummmm.....where did I say that? Please don't make stuff up I didn't say.

[TheresNoMoney]

I said that the GOP has a faster growing presidential base, and you asked if it could be tranlslated, which means you don't realize that heavy blue states might ;ost votes.

No, your post made no sense. It was like a 1st grader wrote it.

[TheresNoMoney]

Just trying to help you out.

[TheresNoMoney]

A little tough love, that's all.  You need to work on your grammer.

[Gabu]

I said that the GOP has a faster growing presidential base, and you asked if it could be tranlslated, which means you don't realize that heavy blue states might ;ost votes.

No, your post made no sense. It was like a 1st grader wrote it.

bastard

No offense, but I do agree that it wasn't a very intelligible post.  Not understand what is said is not the same as disagreeing with it.

[NHPolitico]

HUGE KUDOS especially to the many fair-minded Republicans here who have stuck up for Obama.  You guys and gals are why I still have so much respect for your party.

Sometimes I wonder if people like this are just stirring the pot because the controversies they cause put cash in their pockets. It's also possible she's just a dumbass.