Loaves and fishes dogs and ponies, Congress loves its crooks and phonies.
Paint your cart blue or red it’s still the same cart full of the same shit turning bloodier by the day.
Isn’t there an alternative?
McCain happens to be a decent human being, even if he has done scummy things as a politician. He asked the NC Reps not to run a damaging ad against Obama. The NC Reps of course refused.
Out of the three of these stooges, he’s the only one I respect. Which doesn’t mean I would vote for him, being as how I’m against perpetual war, but I respect the man.
This isn’t Hillary-fellating (or whatever inappropriate metaphor you want to use). They’re doing it for their own benefit, not Hillary’s; they want to keep people hanging on as long as possible. It’s the equivalent of “The ball game’s not over yet folks. Don’t change the channel!”
Part of the usual public ritual in which a candidate can get the dirt “out there” while making his own hands look clean.
“‘Of course’ they refused.” 
Of course.
Evidence? Otherwise this is just character assassination.
Why must you bring Jane into this?
Character assassination, common sense… with politics it gets hard to tell which is which. I think ElvisL1ves is probably right.
I share the annoyance of the OP.
Clinton got tactically nasty long before Obama did, and has gone a lot further with character attack. Obama has never insinuated that Clinton would not be as desirable as McCain, for example.
Clinton is proving, again, that she is the candidate or rancor and division. She cannot be president.
Quite right, Thudlow, but I’m fed up with the punditocracy even beyond that.
I’ve been listening to the endless analyses of the campaigns; things like “she’s polling well with Hispanics”, “will his bowling score hurt him?”, “what’s her strategy going forward?”, and the one thing they never tell me is…
Why should I care?
To be clear, I care a lot about who the next President will be, and how effectively that person will govern. I don’t care about how they will craft their message to appeal to their key demographics without alienating their core constituency by purchasing ads in the major media markets to demonstrate their electability.
The news has been covering the candidates for so long that they see the election only as the candidates do, and are telling me nothing that I need to know to cast my vote. At the first Republican debate, held at the Reagan Library, a few of the candidates fellated the spirit of the Gipper by crediting his tough stand against terrorists by getting the Iranian hostages released within an hour of his inauguration. The response from the analysts was “will this play well with the so-called Reagan Democrats in a broad-based Southern strategy?” What I needed to hear was “they’re lying through their teeth.”
Nice to know how much the Republicans respect their own candidate, if they won’t even listen to him.
The media loves it when there is a fight going on? Who woulda thunk it?
Hey, neither candidate has the delegates to clinch the nomination. Hillary still thinks she can persuade enough super-ds to side with her. I’m an Obama supporter, but I understand why Hill is still mixing it up. She wants to be prez. I see no reason why she should drop out unless she wants to. It’s still a race, and the media are reporting it as such.
Oh, sure, try and be all reasonable. :rolleyes:
It’s still annoying! I want this shit settled!
The Democratic Party doomsday prophecies get a bit old. Debate and controversy spark public discourse. Obama has said Hillary’s hope of audacity is strengthening his campaign. When he fights in the GE all the stupid shit will be old news.
Meanwhile McCain is fighting like Jessie Jackson to get some air time.
Maureen Dowd’s column on the subject is pretty funny.
We know how that could happen. Democrats on the whole (the Clintons not withstanding) are not motivated enough, nor are they generally skilled enough, to take part in the kind of treachery necessary to remain at the top of the political heap. The Republicans have a network of supporters 1/3 the size of the Dems, but their supporters tend to have a lot more juice. Though it shouldn’t matter, it does. Democrats would prefer to see themselves as taking a higher moral course, but they don’t. Rather than slitting the throats necessary to get to the top, they become self-indulgent the longer they’re in power and self-righteous when they see the proverbial throats being slit. You have to follow the same path to the throne, once you’re there, THEN you can change the kingdom, until then, it’s all flowery rhetoric and hopeful conjecture.
The one thing that keeps Hillary in the race and might just be Barry’s downfall, is that he doesn’t seem to have the stomach for the work that’s necessary. Now, I think that’s a good thing for a leader, and I think it’s a change that’s a long time coming, but as much as I hope it will happen, I don’t think he’ll make it unless he gathers some testicular fortitude.
Sadly, I think we’ll be voting for the dumber of two evils come November.
Is this even physically possible? :dubious:
Take a closer look at the pantsuit and let us know, won’t you.
Andros! 
Long time no hear from. I announced my support for Obama — and my intention to vote for him in November — some time ago. It was just after I found out that his chief economic advisor is a Chicago School advocate. (Pretty close to the Austrian School, to which I adhere as a classical liberal.)
Liberal, you stole my post!
I don’t care if Hillary stays in the race, she does have every right. What pisses me and others off so much is not that she is in the race so much as the strategy she needs to employ to justify her staying in the race.
But like the OP said, the pundits are the ones to blame and as others have pointed it is clear that they aren’t concerned with being right, they are just concerned with stirring the pot.
Do you see any specific policy proposals of his that shows that influence? Just curious-- I’m not saying I don’t see any influence, I’m just not sure.