You all know what the questions are.
All those “surrogate moments” are making a lot more sense now, aren’t they. Clinton has lost a lot of ground to Obama in the last month. An eleven point drop for the last year’s “inevitable” candidate is nothing to sneeze at.
As for McCain, it just goes to show what relentless positive coverage by all his sycophants in the media can do in the face of an otherwise uninspiring group of GOP candidates. They dislike Mitt “Mannequin” Romney, and they loathe Mike “Huckleberry” Huckabee, which means it was time for them to dust off all the “Saint McCain” material they’ve been saving since 2000 when another candidate (some idiot named Bush) used a blatantly racist campaign and smear tactics in South Carolina to leapfrog their pal Johnny for the Republican nomination.
You just know the “Broder faithful” would do anything –literally anything — if they could engineer a Clinton/McCain battle for the Presidency this Fall. All those juicy Clintonian story lines (past present and future) to revel in? All that non-stop ass kissing for McCain. They’d kill to get this match up. Chris Matthews alone would be having on air orgasms every night while simultaneously bashing Hillary and gushing over the manly Johnny Mac. And he wouldn’t be the only one.
So you can expect them to do everything possible to destroy Obama’s campaign in the next three weeks. They have already effectively killed off the Edwards campaign through mockery and indifference. They couldn’t have nearly as much fun with those two as they can with Hillary and Bill, the Sequel.
Which tells you everything that is wrong about our political/infotainment culture in a nutshell.
Gotta tell ya– luv your brain!!!! Right on target. And Hill has another big prob. DLC! That bunch of scum will give the goopers the WH in 08!
What a joke!
Pres. MKANE!!!!!!!!!
No doubt people are beginning to comprehend, “DLC” and its corporate leanings.
But not said is the fact that, in the past month, Bill, and then Hillary, got frightened and went negative on Obama. And I suspect that, Bill, who has lost touch, will go even more negative. I’ve never seen him in such a tizzy, this usually composed and thoughtful man. He just seems incapable of recognizing his Republican Lite politics as old hat, out of date.
So you can expect them to do everything possible to destroy Obama’s campaign in the next three weeks. …
A cause already well under way by the Clinton campaign.
And it’s only January.
Wait another few months once the Primary season is winding down and it starts turning truly ugly.
My question is what is Bush doing with regard to Iran while we are all focusing on the political/infotainment culture of the primaries.
.
RHIAD, Saudi Arabia — King Abdullah described the U.S. as the world’s leading state sponsor of warfare in the Middle East and called on Arab allies to help the Saudi government curb the threat “before it’s too late.”
In a speech at an opulent, palace-style resort here today, King Abdullah accused US’s militant Christian Evangelical government of spending hundreds of billions of dollars to foment instability in Iraq , Lebanon, Iran, Afghanistan and the Pakistani tribal areas, while ordinary Amerians face economic hardships, political and democratic repression.
“US’s actions threaten the security of nations everywhere,” King Abdullah said.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (left)is greeted by Saudi King Abdullah in Riyadh.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."Sounds like Bush and King Abdullah have a little different perspective on who the real threat might be in the Middle East.
Gosh, I wonder who is the one suffering from cognitive dissonance here? Is it the real King or the wanna-be King? I’ve certainly got my hunches.
Bush thought that he could bribe the Saudis by giving them Palestine. The Saudi’s, however, have been there before, when in 2002 and in 2006, they offered Israel the world in return for a Palestinian state. No dice. Israel wants the entire banana, afterall, they have the US in their corner, or is it that Israel is in the US’ corner. That’s been argued before, but it doesn’t matter. The disbelief is what matters.
Reuters had a rather pointed analysis of Bush’s Middle Eastern fantasy tour.
Peace in the Middle East has never been anything more than a talking point for Bush.
He’s wasting his time. All he’s doing is adding pictures to his presidential scrapbook. Nothing more.
Recently read a few other analysis which essentially conclude the same thing. It will be talked about as the failed Bush Initiative, which was as least as inevitable as the Clinton Initiative. Only in the latter effort, through the additional work of Clinton and Dennis Ross, it was possible to blame the Palestinians for refusing the “generous offer” that was made.
Dennis Ross had this take on Arafat’s refusal in an article in Foreign Policy in July 2002.
A generous offer? Maybe, maybe not. I guess, in the end, that would depend from which side of the fence one is looking at that point in time.
Dennis Ross was a right wing Zionist lackey/propagandist, who understood, along with Clinton, that there would be no Palestinian state arising from the Camp David/Taba negotations. First of all, the Israelis stated from the beginning that “settlements were off the table.” What were settlements? Those 150 Israeli only villages, towns, and cities that Israel, since the mid70s, had built on the West Bank and in Gaza, interconnected with Israel through Israeli only roads, and protected by Israeli defense forces. There were also businesses and industries that accompanied them. Second, the Israelis demanded that nothing be put in writing; only verbal talk was permitted.
How could there have been a Palestinian state with the entire West Bank covered with Israeli towns and cities? Have you ever seen pictures of them, ranging in size from 500 to 30,000 plus today.
In 2005, Ehud Barak, on the Charlie Rose Show admitted that he was unable to remove (disengage, in Sharon’s terms) even a single settlement from the West Bank, that not even his own party would have voted for it.
When the negotiations continued in Taba with the so-called 97% solution, as that solution included all of the settlements, it was evident that what was proposed were a group of isolated bantustans between the Israeli settlements. Neither Clinton nor Ross had any power to remove the Israeli towns and cities. In addition, Israel was to control the borders.
Camp David/Taba was a farce. At its end, Ross made clear to Clinton that Arafat would have to take the fall for the breakdown of the negotiations, and so the myth of the generous offer was born. FAIR has a good description of the negotiations, but I don’t have the link handy. As a measure of Israel’s lack of seriousness at Olso and Camp David/Taba, during Clinton’s administration, settlements on the West Bank doubled. Israel’s obvious intent was and still is to annex the West Bank into Israel, where it is known as Judea and Samaria.
For Clinton’s sake, thank god the polls don’t count, at least when you use Diebolds.
Well, I have now fairly effectively weaned myself from all television punditry so I’ll only have to read about people like Matthews on C&L, Media Matters or when Glennzilla opines. And it will be on my terms, when or if I want to. This has significantly curtailed the necessary purchases of Maalox required to get through mindless inanity like Hardball. Frees up a little dough to spend on important things, too, like more good beer.
Newsflash for Hillary…
“IT’S ALL ABOUT INTEGRITY, STUPID”
Funny word, integrity. It applies to connecting the dots of how one chooses to face off against an opponent before and after a campaign; it refers to an honest economy; it refers to deference to our Constitution and most importantly the stature we give our President.
I’m reading ‘Confessions of a Republican Operative’ by Allen Raymond (of NH phone jamming fame)
1st page has the quote: “Back in 2002, just about every Republican operative was so dizzy with power that if you could find two of us who could still tell the difference between politics and crime, you could probably have rubbed us together for fire as well.”
Is there a policy or program behind frontpaging some polls nad not others?
http://pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm
Need to look at a sampling of polls to get stable numbers. Here’s a try at it from PollingReport.Com:
USA Today/Gallup Poll. Jan. 10-13, 2008. N=1,021 Democrats and Democratic leaners nationwide. MoE ± 3.
.
“Next, I’m going to read a list of people who may be running in the Democratic primary for president in the next election. After I read all the names, please tell me which of those candidates you would be most likely to support for the Democratic nomination for president in the year 2008, or if you would support someone else. . . .” Names rotated. For 11/11-14/07 and earlier, includes second choices of Gore supporters.
1/10-13/08 1/4-6/08 12/14-16/07
Hillary Clinton 45 33 45
Barack Obama 33 33 27
John Edwards 13 20 15
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Jan. 9-12, 2008. N=1,130 adults nationwide. Fieldwork by TNS. Results below are among likely Democratic primary voters.
.
“If the 2008 Democratic presidential primary or caucus in your state were being held today, and the candidates were [see below], for whom would you vote?” Names rotated. Includes leaners. For 7/07 and earlier, includes second choices of Gore supporters.
1/9-12/08 12/6-9/07
Hillary Clinton 42 53
Barack Obama 37 23
John Edwards 11 10
CBS News/New York Times Poll. Jan. 9-12, 2008. N=508 Democratic primary voters nationwide. MoE ± 4.
“Who would you like to see the Democratic Party nominate as its presidential candidate in 2008: [see below]?”
1/9-12/08 12/5-9/07
Hillary Clinton 42 44
Barack Obama 27 27
John Edwards 11 11
CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. Jan. 9-10, 2008. N=443 registered voters nationwide who are Democrats or lean Democrats. MoE ± 4.5.
“Please tell me which of the following people you would be most likely to support for the Democratic nomination for president: [see below]?” Names rotated. For 10/07 and earlier, includes second choices of Gore supporters.
1/9-10/08 12/6-9/07
Hillary Clinton 49 40
Barack Obama 36 30
John Edwards 12 14
Dennis Kucinich 1 4
To answer your question, no. I saw the WAPO story about their poll in my rss feed reader this morning. I wasn’t aware of any NYT poll to be honest.
Edwards got play for awhile maybe to make it look legit. Richardson, Dodd and Biden got nothing. We get the latest updates on the “bikini carwash” while they pick our leaders for us. There is something very wrong here. Never any in depth on Iraqi refugees or the Palestinian suffering. Only stories on how the soldiers were insulted or an immigrant committed a crime maybe Christ’s birthday isn’t being celebrated joyously enough by the people and of course the new topless coffee shop opening up.
Sometimes I have a chance to watch English language Al Jazeera, they actually deal with the news. The pain and suffering of war how many people are dying, refugees etc. The stuff Barbara Bush said isn’t relevant. The stuff her son and MSM ignore.