THE LIBERAL THREAD #3- No Debate Please

[LuvDuke]

McCain's age doesn't bother me. What does bother me is his secrecy over his medical records.

In 2000, he gave complete access to his medical records AND his doctors. In 2008, he refuses to release them.

So what changed between 2000 and 2008? What is he hiding? My best guess tells me if he was a perfectly healthy man and there's nothing in those records, he'd present them in a heartbeat.

He's hiding something and the American people have a right to know the relative health of a 72 year old man before they cast their vote.

Of course, Planet Bush doesn't need any of that. All they need is a barely breathing, comatose candidate with an "R" shingle in front of his name.

 

[Fitswimmer]

GW McCain's age has NOTHING to do with why I could not vote for him. As I've said a number of times, I really liked him in 2000, I would have loved to vote for him over Bush. However, it's pretty clear when you hear his speeches now that he is NOT the man he was in 2000. His positions have changed drastically since then. For many conservatives, that's a good thing, I know that he was long considered a RINO.

In 2000 he was a candidate that wanted to change things, in 2008 he's GW's third term.

 

[Charade]

GW McCain's ...

This really saddens me. I thought you were above the cheap shots.

Carry on..

(Honey, where are my glasses? (from the background, "on your face")).

 

[crazyforgoofy]

Is Charade an old people?

You know something? I have absolutely no idea how old anyone here is. You may old be as old as dirt or not. Personally I dislike McCain for his policies, his age is a consideration but not a major one.

I'm younger than John McCain but not quite dirt age yet, thanks. I wasn't talking about McCain's age so much as giving Charade (whose name is also John) a little poke in the ribs but then you knew that.

My mother is older than McCain. She believes he is too old in addition to her strong disagreement with the politics of John McCain of 2008. She rather liked the positions of John McCain 2000 but he's no where to be found these days.

 

[Fitswimmer]

I'm younger than John McCain but not quite dirt age yet, thanks. I wasn't talking about McCain's age so much as giving Charade (whose name is also John) a little poke in the ribs but then you knew that.

My mother is older than McCain. She believes he is too old in addition to her strong disagreement with the politics of John McCain of 2008. She rather liked the positions of John McCain 2000 but he's no where to be found these days.

My Dad said the same thing. Dad will turn 80 this December, so obviously he's not cracking McCain about age. Right now, he's vocally supporting Hillary, to the annoyance of just about all his neighbors.

 

[Fitswimmer]

I debated starting a thread on this, but decided to share with you folks first. The National Defense University has released a report that is VERY critical of the Iraq War. Now, this is hardly a liberal organization and I'm wondering how the usual suspects are going to spin it.

Here's a link to the report-I haven't read the entire thing, but what I have read is not complimentary to the President or Don Rumsfeld.

http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Occasional_Papers/OP5.pdf

 

[LuvDuke]

I debated starting a thread on this, but decided to share with you folks first. The National Defense University has released a report that is VERY critical of the Iraq War. Now, this is hardly a liberal organization and I'm wondering how the usual suspects are going to spin it.

Here's a link to the report-I haven't read the entire thing, but what I have read is not complimentary to the President or Don Rumsfeld.

http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Occasional_Papers/OP5.pdf

Fits, at this point, do we really need someone to tell us the war is a disaster and worst foreign policy blunder in American history? This war has broken the back of our military, our economy, our foreign policy, and our energy policy.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Fits, at this point, do we really need someone to tell us the war is a disaster and worst foreign policy blunder in American history? This war has broken the back of our military, our economy, our foreign policy, and our energy policy.

We don't, but there seem to be a good many that still don't have a clue. That's why I found the report interesting because it doesn't come from one of their "usual suspect" sources like the NY Times.

 

[Planogirl]

We don't, but there seem to be a good many that still don't have a clue. That's why I found the report interesting because it doesn't come from one of their "usual suspect" sources like the NY Times.

I suspect that those who still claim that the war is wonderful won't pay any attention to this report. I don't think that anything will convince some of the diehards.

 

[Fitswimmer]

I suspect that those who still claim that the war is wonderful won't pay any attention to this report. I don't think that anything will convince some of the diehards.

You're probably right, may as well not waste the bandwidth.

 

[JARNJ3]

Did you SEE Rachel Maddow put the smackdown on poor Joe Scarborough on MSNBC this evening? It was great. Joe apparently took his mike off and left in a huff. I was literally rotflmao! Guess he can dish it out but canNOT take it.

I actually heard her show on Air America yesterday.

It was refreshing to hear an acknowledgment that Hillary has an important skill set she brings to the table (policy "wonk" for lack of a better word).

Paraphrasing her here - but she said both candidates bring different skill sets to the table - but both don't have each other's skills.

She said (still paraphrasing) that Obama has the "change" thing working for him - and that he's closely following Deval Patrick's plan (he was elected in MA). But once Patrick got elected - he didn't have the skill set to make the changes he campaigned on (ie how to get things passed in the legislature). So things weren't getting done up there.

Regarding Hillary - she said - she's got the knowledge on how to get things passed (ie knows all the rules and regs of what you need to do to get a bill passed) - but she doesn't have the Obama skill of defining and selling the change that needed to be made (again paraphrasing).

I thought at the time - how refreshing - someone acknowledging that both candidates bring different necessary skills to the table. She said - what we really need is a candidate that has BOTH skill sets. Then went to a commercial - and I switched the station.....

 

[Fitswimmer]

I actually heard her show on Air America yesterday.

It was refreshing to hear an acknowledgment that Hillary has an important skill set she brings to the table (policy "wonk" for lack of a better word).

Paraphrasing her here - but she said both candidates bring different skill sets to the table - but both don't have each other's skills.

She said (still paraphrasing) that Obama has the "change" thing working for him - and that he's closely following Deval Patrick's plan (he was elected in MA). But once Patrick got elected - he didn't have the skill set to make the changes he campaigned on (ie how to get things passed in the legislature). So things weren't getting done up there.

Regarding Hillary - she said - she's got the knowledge on how to get things passed (ie knows all the rules and regs of what you need to do to get a bill passed) - but she doesn't have the Obama skill of defining and selling the change that needed to be made (again paraphrasing).

I thought at the time - how refreshing - someone acknowledging that both candidates bring different necessary skills to the table. She said - what we really need is a candidate that has BOTH skill sets. Then went to a commercial - and I switched the station.....

I think that's why so many people were in favor of a joint ticket. I think many Democrats realize that each of them carries a part of the best candidate and together they would create the best candidate. Sadly, the primary process seems to have effectively eliminated any chance of that happening.

 

[dcentity2000]

Fitswimmer, the McCain quotes in your sig are rather, well, terrifying. Lord help us if he gets elected!



Rich::

 

[eclectics]

I debated starting a thread on this, but decided to share with you folks first. The National Defense University has released a report that is VERY critical of the Iraq War. Now, this is hardly a liberal organization and I'm wondering how the usual suspects are going to spin it.
Here's a link to the report-I haven't read the entire thing, but what I have read is not complimentary to the President or Don Rumsfeld.

http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Occasional_Papers/OP5.pdf

You know they're going to give it the old college try....They always do.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Fitswimmer, the McCain quotes in your sig are rather, well, terrifying. Lord help us if he gets elected!



Rich::

That's why they're there, Rich. A few of us are using them to remind everyone of what is really at stake here. There is so much in-house fighting going on that I have real concerns about what will happen in November. This race is the Democrats to lose, and if we as a party do not wise up and grow up, we're going to lose it.

 

[JARNJ3]

I think that's why so many people were in favor of a joint ticket. I think many Democrats realize that each of them carries a part of the best candidate and together they would create the best candidate. Sadly, the primary process seems to have effectively eliminated any chance of that happening.

I may be pollyanna, naive - whatever you want to call me - but I think we supporters take these campaign twists and turns much more personally than the candidates do.

My cynical opinion (wow I called myself three names in one post ) is that if the focus groups\polls show the only way they can win is together - it WILL be a combined ticket..........

I've been willing to concede it doesn't look so good for Clinton getting the democratic nomination (there goes my Hillary cred) - but no one's been able to show me how Obama wins more states than Kerry did. That is the ultimate and required goal......

 

[MyManGoofy!]

Hi there fellow libs! I posted a thread that I am very interested in hearing your responses.

http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=1796149

Hope you pop over and respond.

OT: Posted this over on the conservative thread as well and it was my 666th post - weird huh?

 

[Fitswimmer]

I may be pollyanna, naive - whatever you want to call me - but I think we supporters take these campaign twists and turns much more personally than the candidates do.

My cynical opinion (wow I called myself three names in one post ) is that if the focus groups\polls show the only way they can win is together - it WILL be a combined ticket..........

I've been willing to concede it doesn't look so good for Clinton getting the democratic nomination (there goes my Hillary cred) - but no one's been able to show me how Obama wins more states than Kerry did. That is the ultimate and required goal......

Boy, I hope you're right-but after the other night I'm not so sure that these two can mend fences and do what could really win them the WH. McCain could never win against both of them together. We could get 16 years of the WH with that combo-8 for Hillary/Obama, 8 for Obama/VP...and by then Chelsea will be ready!!

 

[robinb]

We could get 16 years of the WH with that combo-8 for Hillary/Obama, 8 for Obama/VP...and by then Chelsea will be ready!!

And she would run against that Republican hottie George P. Bush.

 

[wvrevy]

I've been willing to concede it doesn't look so good for Clinton getting the democratic nomination (there goes my Hillary cred) - but no one's been able to show me how Obama wins more states than Kerry did. That is the ultimate and required goal......

At the risk of throwing this thread into turmoil again, I will gladly give this a shot:

In 2004, Kerry won the following states:

California
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Hawaii
Illinois
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Vermont
Washington
Wisconsin

Of that list, California, DC, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Wisconsin are virtual locks if Obama is the nominee (obviously, a few of them are locks regardless of the Democratic candidate).

Taking those states out of the list leaves this:

Connecticut
Delaware
Maine
Maryland
Michigan
New Hampshire
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Washington

Of those, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, and Washington have already voted for Obama for the nomination, so cross them off as well. That leaves:

Michigan - Polls now show Obama would win a primary held at this point.
New Hampshire - Could go either way in November (4 electoral votes)
Pennsylvania - Swing state for sure, but unlikely to vote for free trading McCain
Rhode Island - Will likely go Dem regardless, but it's only 4 electoral votes

Now, we're back to where Kerry was...still a few votes short of the nomination. BUT...by having Obama as the candidate, you also bring these states into play:

Ohio - Again, the economy has continued to worsen, so this will be a swing state, but one that I doubt will swing towards such a free trade proponent as McCain.
Florida - No way to know how Obama will do here, but the state is still up for grabs either way.
Georgia - Unlikely to go blue, granted. Still, they've a huge African American voting block, and enough indifference by the deep southern right towards McCain could bring this state into the "swing" category.
Indiana - Barack does very well in the midwest for whatever reason. Another traditionally "red" state that could be in play.
Iowa - See above.
Louisiana - Similar to Georgia in both the demographic make-up and the potential for indifference towards McCain.
Missouri - This is a distinct possibility for Barack to carry in November.
Nevada - McCain is strong in the west, but so is Barack.
New Mexico - See above.
North Carolina - I honestly believe Barack will win this state in November.
Texas - The Republican California or New York. Will Texas go blue? Probably not. But with either Hillary or Barack, it's a possibility.

Keep in mind...If Barack can hold onto the states that went for Kerry in '04, then he would only have to add one state from that last list to win the presidency.

So...that's how I see it happening. He'll pick up North Carolina, Missouri, and at least one or two others, and we'll have the first election in years that doesn't come down to one state one way or the other.