In reponse to Chrono Spark WRT Obama/Powell

That combo lept out at me a little while back when there was a rumour that Powell was going to endorse O. And while I know Powell's not a progressive, I'll admit that I liked it.

I think it would be a masterful stroke to let the air out of McCain's so called military/foreign policy advantage.

When McCain says "I know how to win in Iraq" Powell can say, "I actually won a war in Iraq."

I think it would be a Karate Kid crane kick to McCain's nuts.

Posted at August 18, 2008 3:24 PM in response to VP DECISION HAS BEEN MADE: Not Bayh, Not Daschle, Not Clark

Agreed!

Posted at April 19, 2008 8:38 PM in response to New Obama Ads In Pennsylvania Attack Clinton

With respect, the experience in question is one of contention and failure.

Posted at April 19, 2008 8:38 PM in response to New Obama Ads In Pennsylvania Attack Clinton

Foreigner:

"Hillary's healthcare plan covers 90+% of the uninsured, while Obama's only covers 40-50%."

To make sure we're clear, the link you cited in your post (factcheck.org) actually makes many different assertions with the low end being; "a plan without one [a mandate] would cover 49 percent", while the SAME source (Gruber) says that Obama's plan "would cover about two-thirds of the currently uninsured..."

The additional source cited says Obama's plan would cover about 45%.

If you are going to compare the two from that data source, the more correct range to cite would be 45%-66% coverage under Obama's plan.

I am an Obama supporter. I agree that Hillary's proposed healthcare plan is better than Obama's.

Neither goes anywhere near far enough, imo.

Posted at April 19, 2008 8:35 PM in response to New Obama Ads In Pennsylvania Attack Clinton

1)"All of our problems with Iran started during the Carter administration..."

Ahh... no.

Sorry there sportrod, but it would behoove you to crack a book or the Foogle for 30 seconds and review the history of US/Iran involvement before you make such ill informed statements.

Remember the Shah?

Eisenhower era puppet. Here's a nice link.

2)"Alot of Barrack's popularity comes from the "Hip-Hop" generation's coming out in full force in his favor the same way "Generation X" did for Jimmy Carter"

The OLDEST of the generation X cohort in 1976 (Carter's election year) was... 11.

What exactly did a bunch of pre teens do for Carter again?

Thank you for playing.

Posted at April 13, 2008 8:58 PM in response to Jimmy Carter Signals Support For Obama

Well, in about 30 minutes, I'm off to *my* Washington State Legislative District Caucus (fightin' 37th!), where I'm a precinct delegate for Obama.

I've had lots of mails and a couple of calls regarding the caucus.

NONE of those calls or emails were from Clinton's campaign. So who knows?

We've been told that Washington's caucus was largest in the country at +240k attendees. I'm not surprised there's a little spill over.

Posted at April 5, 2008 11:35 AM in response to Clinton Asked Me to Betray Obama

What are 'fraud trolls?'

Are they real trolls, or faux trolls? Or are they trolls who valiantly look for fraud?

Posted at April 1, 2008 12:29 PM in response to Hillary Telling Local Media In Future Voting States That Obama Wants Race To End

Blue,

"I suspect Edwards would've been the non-Clinton candidate, but would've lost."

I agree, and I think this is a really astute observation. (I'm a former Edwards supporter in 2004 *and* 2007, and am now a delegate for Obama)

Sen. Clinton strikes me as being a lot like Kerry in 2004... the 'electable one' with the 'experience.'

Unlike 2004, I think Clinton could/can seal the deal and get elected-- but I feel a lot better about our chances with Sen. Obama.

Posted at April 1, 2008 3:55 AM in response to Hillary Campaign Post-Mortem

North_aufzoo, I second your comment and sentiment. Well said.

Posted at March 22, 2008 4:10 PM in response to Obama Aide: Bill Clinton Like McCarthy

I agree with the sentiment that Penn says things that are outrageous and unconsidered. The sad truth though, is that 99.5% of the electorate has never heard of him, and unless something he says gets major play (like a Ferraro or Wright level), he could probably say something douchy 5 times a day, and it'll never hurt the Clinton campaign.

(beyond the inside baseball types like us)

His words seem to have little to no impact on the daily/weekly news cycle.

Posted at March 22, 2008 4:04 PM in response to Mark Penn: "Hey, remember when I said polls mattered? I was KIDDING!!"