News US Presidential Primaries, 2008

[Astronuc]

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2008/03/sinbad_unloads_on_hillary_clin.html

In her Iowa stump speech, Clinton also said, "We used to say in the White House that if a place is too dangerous, too small or too poor, send the First Lady."

Say what? As Sinbad put it: "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"

. . . .

"What got me about Hillary was her attitude of entitlement, like he messed up her plan, like he had no reason to be there," Sinbad said. "I got angry. I actually got angry! I said, 'I will be for Obama like never before.'"

. . . .

The Clinton campaign doesn't seem amused by Sinbad's commentary or his recollection of the 1996 Bosnia trip as more depressing than harrowing.

Defending Clinton's characterization of her Bosnia mission, campaign spokesman Phil Singer kindly provided experts from news stories written about the trip at the time, including a Washington Post story from May 26, 1996, that said, "This trip to Bosnia marks the first time since Roosevelt that a first lady has voyaged to a potential combat zone."

The operative word in the last sentence is "potential" as in "well it could be". I don't imagine the Clinton campaign is happy about any contradiction of their fantasies.

Well think about this - without Obama, we'd have a choice of Clinton or McCain - which seems a lot like Bush vs Gore, or Bush vs Kerry.

With Obama, the US has a viable third alternative - and Obama may be the best choice overall.

 

[Gokul43201]

"This trip to Bosnia marks the first time since Roosevelt that a first lady has voyaged to a potential combat zone."

No, it wasn't. Pat Nixon made a trip to 'Nam in '69.

 

[Poop-Loops]

History wins again!

 

[turbo]

Obama is ahead in the popular vote, states won, and in pledged delegates, and the results in Texas last weekend bolstered him even more. The only way that Clinton could overtake him is a mass exodus to her by the Superdelegates, overriding the outcomes of the primaries and caucuses.

Why is this unlikely? Many of these Superdelegates are going to be on the ballot next November. Why should they back a presidential candidate with such high negatives, when they could back a candidate who has proven his ability to motivate voters, and build a grass-roots movement to bring new voters (many of them young) to the polls? I can't imagine a Congressional candidate (even a "safe" incumbent) or Senatorial candidate that would not want to benefit from a fresh infusion of progressive voters. Also, if these Superdelegates hail from a state that went strongly to Obama, and they support Clinton, they may be on the receiving end of some backlash from their constituents who would (rightly) feel disenfranchised.

Unless Bill and Hill have some serious dirt on them, the Superdelegates are going to look out for their own best interests and support the candidate that can boost Dem attendance in the general election, and possibly prompt a good many Independents to help give a new Democratic president a stronger filibuster-proof Senate and a loyal progressive House. By this metric, the Clinton campaign is already over. The remaining question is how long will she stay in the race to try to make Obama look unelectable?

 

[Gokul43201]

By this metric, the Clinton campaign is already over. The remaining question is how long will she stay in the race to try to make Obama look unelectable?

The one remaining "metric" is the scandal metric. Another Wright could destroy Obama...or maybe even the same one making a comeback. You wonder why Hillary has suddenly become chummy with the vast right wing conspiracy?

 

[Astronuc]

I remember a comment a couple of years or so ago, that Rupert Murdoch (FOX) had become a good friend of the Clinton's.

One of my very conservative colleagues who tends to vote Republican considers McCain and Clinton to be in the same boat.

 

[Gokul43201]

What's interesting is that while many people consider the fringe inhabiting Dems and Reps to be essentially woven of the same authoritarianist-corporatist cloth, it seems just as arguable that their in-party rivals, the other fringe inhabiting libertarians (like Gravel and Paul), are also birds of a feather.

PS: Gravel's back, as a Libertarian hopeful. Will he have to fight Paul for that ticket?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama continues to chip away at Sen. Hillary Clinton's lead in the crucial state of Pennsylvania, a new Quinnipiac poll out Tuesday showed.

The New York senator's lead over Obama now stands at 6 points in the new poll, 50-44 percent. [continued]

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/08/democrats.pennsylvania/?iref=mpstoryview

 

[WheelsRCool]

I think I read somewhere that Rupert Murdoch donated money to Hillary Clinton's campaign.

I would not vote for any of the candidates but unfortunately they are the only choices, in my opinion a Left-leaning Republican, a solid Democrat (Hillary), and what seems a socialist (Obama) with questionable loyalty issues.

 

[Gokul43201]

Question: Does the 22nd Amendment put any restrictions on an ex-President running/serving as VP?

 

[BobG]

Question: Does the 22nd Amendment put any restrictions on an ex-President running/serving as VP?

Yes. The Vice President has to be eligible to be President. Between the 20th Amendment, 22nd Amendment, 25th Amendment, and the 1947 Presidential Succession Act, the Vice President has the same eligibility requirements as the President, since the main duty of the Vice President is to succeed the President if he/she dies. (Others in the line of Presidential succession are just skipped if they're not eligible since they have actual jobs separate from succeeding the President).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yes. The Vice President has to be eligible to be President. Between the 20th Amendment, 22nd Amendment, 25th Amendment, and the 1947 Presidential Succession Act, the Vice President has the same eligibility requirements as the President, since the main duty of the Vice President is to succeed the President if he/she dies. (Others in the line of Presidential succession are just skipped if they're not eligible since they have actual jobs separate from succeeding the President).

Where does the Constitution specifically exclude a former President from running as VP?

The only stipulation is that a person can only be elected as President twice. I see nothing that would prevent a former President from running as a Vice President.

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once...

Why do you ask, Gokul? Is McCain planning to ask Bush to run as his VP?

 

[Poop-Loops]

http://blog.reidreport.com/uploaded_images/mccain_bush-hug-767929.jpg

He has his eyes closed and everything.

 

[BobG]

Where does the Constitution specifically exclude a former President from running as VP?

The only stipulation is that a person can only be elected as President twice. I see nothing that would prevent a former President from running as a Vice President.



Why do you ask, Gokul? Is McCain planning to ask Bush to run as his VP?

A former President isn't prevented from running as Vice President. They just have to be eligible to be elected President. Both Jimmy Carter and George HW Bush could be Vice President.

Relying on a single word, "elected", isn't going to provide much of a loop-hole since the intent is clear. It's the equivalent of the argument that the income tax is unconstitutional since the copy of the amendments that were voted on by the states weren't identical to each other (in fact, in the old days, it was virtually assured that every copy of any amendment voted on by the states would have some differences between the versions).

And, technically, a person doesn't actually have to be eligible in order to be elected. They just have to be eligible in order to serve. For example, if a Presidential candidate were a natural born citizen, but had lived most of their life overseas, they might have resided in the United States for less than 14 years. They could still be elected, but the Vice President would serve as President until the elected President had met the 14 year requirement.

 

[Art]

From the 12th Amendment

But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

Guess that rules out Bill

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Relying on a single word, "elected", isn't going to provide much of a loop-hole since the intent is clear.

That point is certainly debatable. If they had said that a President couldn't serve more than two terms, it would be clear, so one has to wonder why that isn't the language used.

As for the 12th amendment, I don't see that eligibility is an issue because succession isn't ruled out under the terms of eligibility.

 

[mheslep]

Yes but its practical a show stopper for the pres. candidate and his/her party because they be nominating a VP that then could only hold office in an emergency and would then be forced to leave office come the first election. Imagine Johnson succeeding Kennedy and then not being able to stand for election a few months later. The pres. candidate would appear nutty or desperate for making such a choice.

 

[BobG]

Yes but its practical a show stopper for the pres. candidate and his/her party because they be nominating a VP that then could only hold office in an emergency and would then be forced to leave office come the first election. Imagine Johnson succeeding Kennedy and then not being able to stand for election a few months later. The pres. candidate would appear nutty or desperate for making such a choice.

The knowledge that trying it would create some kind of Constitutional crisis that would have to be resolved by the Supreme Court to decide who was actually in charge of the country after a Presidential death or disability isn't a bigger show stopper?

Obviously, the issue would have to be decided in the Supreme Court immediately after the election. If the Supreme Court ruled the Vice President was eligible to serve, then he'd serve and be able to replace the President, if necessary. If the Supreme Court ruled he was ineligible then I guess confirming a replacement VP would be the new President's first order of business.

Either way, it's one of those things that are never going to be tested.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

According to the CNN poll of polls, Clinton's lead in Pa has dropped to 4%.

 

[G01]

According to the CNN poll of polls, Clinton's lead in Pa has dropped to 4%.

Maybe the PA primary will be a more interesting battle than first thought. The only thing I can say is that on April 22, my vote is going to Obama.

 

[Astronuc]

The Constitution of the United States of America

Preamble:

We the people of the United States,
in order to form a more perfect union,
establish justice,
insure domestic tranquility,
provide for the common defense,
promote the general welfare, and
secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,

do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


I'd like to see each candidate explain his or her views on just how he or she would:

facilitate or encourage a more perfect union, a greater level of justice (for all), greater domestic tranquility, a reasonable common defense in a sustainable way that doesn't compromise the other goals or drain economic resources, promotion of the general welfare (by virtue of education and healthcare), and

the securing of the blessings of liberty to all and our posterity

 

[turbo]

I wonder if PA voters are going to hear about Bill Clinton's work with Yucaipa Companies (from which he earned over $15M) and their connection with an Italian developer who really ticked off Roman Catholics in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh by buying up distressed Catholic churches and then failing to make the investments needed to refurbish them?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/10/clinton-firms-deal-with-i_n_96032.html

As is mentioned in the above article, slick Willie has collected $800,000 from a free-trade group promoting the Columbian free-trade pact that Hillary supposedly opposes. The Clintons have no shame, nor (it appears) ethical scruples.

 

[turbo]

I'd like to see each candidate explain his or her views on just how he or she would:

facilitate or encourage a more perfect union, a greater level of justice (for all), greater domestic tranquility, a reasonable common defense in a sustainable way that doesn't compromise the other goals or drain economic resources, promotion of the general welfare (by virtue of education and healthcare), and

the securing of the blessings of liberty to all and our posterity

Unfortunately, our government has been co-opted by business and their lobbyists, who have managed to marginalize the value of individuals (the real source of governmental authority) and instead craft a system in which the wants of the wealthy and the corporations are paramount.

The only candidate that might be able to craft a reasonable reply to your request is Obama. Edwards certainly could have, had he survived the primary process.

 

[Gokul43201]

I wonder if PA voters are going to hear about Bill Clinton's work with Yucaipa Companies (from which he earned over $15M) and their connection with an Italian developer who really ticked off Roman Catholics in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh by buying up distressed Catholic churches and then failing to make the investments needed to refurbish them?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/10/clinton-firms-deal-with-i_n_96032.html

As is mentioned in the above article, slick Willie has collected $800,000 from a free-trade group promoting the Columbian free-trade pact that Hillary supposedly opposes. The Clintons have no shame, nor (it appears) ethical scruples.

If Hillary only desisted from talking about a return to the times of Bill, and sleazing her way into the accomplishments of the Bill Clinton presidency, this would be (or should be) a non-issue.

 

[chemisttree]

I wonder if PA voters are going to hear about Bill Clinton's work with Yucaipa Companies (from which he earned over $15M) and their connection with an Italian developer who really ticked off Roman Catholics in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh by buying up distressed Catholic churches and then failing to make the investments needed to refurbish them?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/10/clinton-firms-deal-with-i_n_96032.html

As is mentioned in the above article, slick Willie has collected $800,000 from a free-trade group promoting the Columbian free-trade pact that Hillary supposedly opposes. The Clintons have no shame, nor (it appears) ethical scruples.

AND Bill Clinton recommended that the Columbians hire Mark Penn as the lobbyist to represent their interests!

 

[Astronuc]

I heard someone say that the Clintons (plural) opposed the Colombian trade deal.

Bill is playing both sides?

 

[turbo]

AND Bill Clinton recommended that the Columbians hire Mark Penn as the lobbyist to represent their interests!

Who had to fire Penn after Clinton (the candidate) repudiated the trade deal. There is no way that we can let this incestuous, unethical, lying crowd back into the White House. Everything they say or do has to be parsed and analyzed.

Now Bill is back in hot water with Hillary for not only elaborating on her lies about the Bosnia trip, but adding more lies, saying that she was tired when she told the sniper-fire story and apologized immediately. In fact, she repeated that story over and over again for months, and never apologized for lying, only admitting that she "misspoke" after several witnesses (and media coverage) flatly contradicted her. The Clintons are lying slime and should never be handed control of our country.

 

[BobG]

Who had to fire Penn after Clinton (the candidate) repudiated the trade deal. There is no way that we can let this incestuous, unethical, lying crowd back into the White House. Everything they say or do has to be parsed and analyzed.

Now Bill is back in hot water with Hillary for not only elaborating on her lies about the Bosnia trip, but adding more lies, saying that she was tired when she told the sniper-fire story and apologized immediately. In fact, she repeated that story over and over again for months, and never apologized for lying, only admitting that she "misspoke" after several witnesses (and media coverage) flatly contradicted her. The Clintons are lying slime and should never be handed control of our country.

He's probably in hot water for suggesting she's so old that she's suffering from dementia. If she can't remember things at 11:00 PM, what's she going to do when she gets that 3:00 AM phone call? Especially if she can't tell night from day (I think she made her Bosnia comments in the morning).

I'm not sure what's up with Bill Clinton, but he's sure not an asset. In any event, it's getting to the point that it's not quite fair to hold his comments against her.

 

[Gokul43201]

I'm not sure what's up with Bill Clinton, but he's sure not an asset. In any event, it's getting to the point that it's not quite fair to hold his comments against her.

It is! She is, after all, running her campaign on his coattails.

 

[Astronuc]

On the Defensive, Obama Calls His Words Ill-Chosen
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/13/us/politics/13campaign.html

For a second day, Mr. Obama sought to explain his remarks at a recent San Francisco fund-raiser that small-town Pennsylvania voters, bitter over their economic circumstances, “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them” as a way to explain their frustrations.

Acknowledging Saturday that “I didn’t say it as well as I should have,” he explained his remarks by focusing on his characterization of those voters’ economic woes. He meant, he said, that voters in places that had been losing jobs for years expressed their anxiety at the polls by focusing on cultural and social issues like gun laws and immigration.

But now Hillary is portraying herself as a pro-gun churchgoer!

Mrs. Clinton suggested that Mr. Obama saw religious commitment, hunting and concern about immigration as emotional responses to economic strain rather than as deeply embedded values.

“I grew up in a church-going family, a family that believed in the importance of living out and expressing our faith,” she said at a rally in Indianapolis. “The people of faith I know don’t ‘cling to’ religion because they’re bitter. People embrace faith not because they are materially poor, but because they are spiritually rich.”

Later in the day, in Valparaiso, Ind., she reminisced about her father teaching her how to shoot when she was a young girl.

Although she has been a strong supporter of gun control in the past, urging Congress to “buck the gun lobby” as first lady, Mrs. Clinton said, “Americans who believe in the Second Amendment believe it’s a constitutional right; Americans who believe in God believe it’s a matter of personal faith.”

So Clinton is running as a Republican now? I hope folks see through the charade.