[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
Was there any question about Obama carrying Chocolate City?
[/QUOTE]
I know you mean P-Funk and his Chocolate City [Washington state BTW] - but folks who don’t know George Clinton [Bill’s long lost uncle :D] will think you are being racist.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
Was there any question about Obama carrying Chocolate City?
[/QUOTE]
What’s funny about this question is how much short-term amnesia it demands. It’s been, what, 30 days since Hillary led everywhere including overwhelmingly black states? Of course there was a question. Just not after Bill Clinton and after voters got to know Obama.
ETA: I originally read an “ever” in your question. So, nevermind, but I’ll leave the response anyway.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
It’s an old, traditional, well-established, and in this case illustrative nickname. Don’t flaunt your ignorance of that.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=ElivsL1ves, earlier]
You’re making the mistake of letting your admiration for Obama have a dark side to it. Gotta knock that shit off.
[/QUOTE]
It’s like the pot calling the kettle black. Oh, hah, I made a funny.
It’s only too bad the primaries come so late as to be irrelevant around here …
[QUOTE=Paranoid Randroid]
It’s like the pot calling the kettle black. Oh, hah, I made a funny.
It’s only too bad the primaries come so late as to be irrelevant around here …
[/QUOTE]
Well, if you believe the pundits, there are no primaries too late this year.
[QUOTE=cricetus]
I think Olympia Snowe would be a good crossover candidate. For that matter, she’d be a good running mate for McCain.
[/QUOTE]
Huh. Thought I heard Snowe was ineligible because of foreign birth. But Wikipedia says she was born in Maine. Am I thinking of someone else?
I like Snowe, but I doubt she’d survive the primaries. She’s just too moderate, as evidenced by the fact that I’d have to think long and hard before voting for any given Democrat over her, and doesn’t have the same fame that McCain had to beat her way past the conservatives.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
It’s an old, traditional, well-established, and in this case illustrative nickname. Don’t flaunt your ignorance of that.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t rightly give a flying fig who else uses it or how long it’s been in use - it’s vile and offensive and has no business in a discussion about nominees for President of the United States of America.
[QUOTE=Menocchio]
Huh. Thought I heard Snowe was ineligible because of foreign birth. But Wikipedia says she was born in Maine. Am I thinking of someone else?
[/QUOTE]
You might be thinking of Jennifer Granholm, the governor of Michigan, who was born in Canada.
McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, but is eligible - is that it?
Snowe is personally popular in Maine, as a traditional Northeastern-style mod/lib Republican (i.e. near extinction) but she’s no Kool-Aid drinker. But she (A) can’t carry Maine for the GOP, no one can, (B) with only 4 EV’s it wouldn’t help anyway if she did, and © hardly anybody outside the state even knows who she is.
[QUOTE=Shayna]
It’s my belief that the only reason she even ran for the Senate in the first place was to give herself the gravitas to run for President of the United States. Remember, I have ties that make me only “2 degrees” separated from them, and while I won’t pretend to know everything about them or their campaign, I knew for a long time before she announced that she had every intent to run.
[/quote]
That was pretty obvious to the rest of us, too. 
I doubt she’ll resign from the Senate if she loses - I think she cares too much about her image to look like such a sore loser. But she might retire in 2013, when her term ends.
[QUOTE=Marley23]
That was pretty obvious to the rest of us, too.
I doubt she’ll resign from the Senate if she loses - I think she cares too much about her image to look like such a sore loser. But she might retire in 2013, when her term ends.
[/QUOTE]
Sorry, didn’t mean to imply that I thought she’d quit the senate. What I meant was, she won’t be running for office again after this. Any office. She’ll simply walk away from politics when her term is over because it won’t be a means to her end anymore. But she would never quit anything. It might make her look weak, and she wouldn’t dream of allowing that impression. No way.
[QUOTE=Phlosphr]
Do you think Clinton will run for re-election if she loses to Obama? Do you think she will go back to NY not go for re-election and write another book - Annuls of an historic March or something to that effect? I wonder about her wont to be in Washington if she doesn’t get the nomination…The old ties that broke - the failed allegiances. She’s not like a Kerry who can go back to normal…She’s a pillar of an old dynasty - and actually I like the woman. But I wonder where she will go after all of this is over - if she loses…
If a loss occurs - and it’s trending that way now - what kind of a blow to the Clinton’s ego would this be? Am I reading this all wrong and a loss won’t effect them at all? My sense is that a loss would deeply effect her, what I am wondering is how it would effect her, and what would she do?
[/QUOTE]
Her brain will probably snap from all the inner-rage.
I doubt she would want to continue to be a NY senator.. I mean, she only took the gig as a stepping stone to becoming president. That’s what she really wants.
But now she’s one of the three or four most famous and prominent members of the Senate. Why would she give that up?
[QUOTE=Shayna]
I don’t rightly give a flying fig who else uses it or how long it’s been in use - it’s vile and offensive and has no business in a discussion about nominees for President of the United States of America.
[/QUOTE]
Ridiculous. Since when are you the arbiter of what’s vile and offensive? The Black community has known DC by that name for years. It was popularized by the P-Funk album of the same name. My friends from DC and the surrounding areas refer to it as such.
[QUOTE=Phlosphr]
I don’t hate the woman, I really don’t, I wouldn’t be attending her birthday party or anything, but I certainly don’t hate her. I don’t like the establishment. I see her as the establishment candidate - to be blunt, she doesn’t inspire me. Do you realize last Tuesday was the first time I went behind the curtain to vote with a smile on my face? I have never, ever done that before. Emotionally that means a lot to me. As you can see when you turn on the TV or surf the web that same emotion means a lot to many people across the country when they vote for Obama. It’s a theme expressed over and over. I don’t see the gitty-inspiring talk coming from anywhere in the Clinton Campaign. I see them deflecting negatives over and over and over…I’ve watched her speak on cspan to groups of people and they look happy, but not beside themselves as they do at Obama’s appearances. I’ve seen him, and people are rallying like I’ve not seen in my short 30-something life on this earth. And for a U.S. President??? Yeah, that’s inspiring.
[/QUOTE]
There’s going to be a lot of disillusioned people if Obama is elected. Obama isn’t overtly bad in any way–actually if a Democrat has to win I’d rather it be him than Hillary, but what he’s also not going to be is a major force of change. Obama is a centrist, will govern as a centrist, and you won’t notice any significant change in our political process whatsoever with Obama as President, I think that is something Obama supporters need to realize.
He’s going to shape legislation, like all Presidents do, and will leave an imprint on the country (assuming he becomes President.) But the truth of the matter is, Obama is part of the political establishment just like Hillary is. Obama and the Clinton’s both have very similar backgrounds. Both are from the relative middle class, both went to very prestigious, old-money, establishment schools. Both are Senators, you don’t become a Senator by being anything but part of the establishment.
Leiberman was somewhat unusual because he was running for election for two different offices simultaneously. His senate seat came up for re-election in 2000, the same year he was nominated for Vice-President. So he knew he would have to resign at least one of the offices he was running for. Other recent Senators seeking the presidency like Clinton, McCain, Obama, and Kerry have had more fortunate timing and have sought the presidential nomination in an off-year of their senate term.
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
There’s going to be a lot of disillusioned people if Obama is elected. Obama isn’t overtly bad in any way–actually if a Democrat has to win I’d rather it be him than Hillary, but what he’s also not going to be is a major force of change. Obama is a centrist, will govern as a centrist, and you won’t notice any significant change in our political process whatsoever with Obama as President, I think that is something Obama supporters need to realize.
He’s going to shape legislation, like all Presidents do, and will leave an imprint on the country (assuming he becomes President.) But the truth of the matter is, Obama is part of the political establishment just like Hillary is. Obama and the Clinton’s both have very similar backgrounds. Both are from the relative middle class, both went to very prestigious, old-money, establishment schools. Both are Senators, you don’t become a Senator by being anything but part of the establishment.
[/QUOTE]
If he is elected President, he will already have changed the political process as we know it by not having taken any PAC or lobbyist money. I believe that will be just the beginning. But even if that is all, that is a lot.
[QUOTE=Shayna]
I don’t rightly give a flying fig who else uses it or how long it’s been in use - it’s vile and offensive and has no business in a discussion about nominees for President of the United States of America.
[/QUOTE]
It’s what the black mayor of New Orleans calls his city. Black voters in New Orleans tend to be extremely loyal to black candidates, there was no chance whatsoever they’d vote for a white woman over a viable black candidate.
[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
If he is elected President, he will already have changed the political process as we know it by not having taken any PAC or lobbyist money. I believe that will be just the beginning. But even if that is all, that is a lot.
[/QUOTE]
Here’s an interesting news article about Obama and his relationship with lobbyists link.
Here is another article showing how Obama has raised money from lobbyists and PACs.
Indeed, I invite everyone to read those articles and see if they refute my point. Which for clarity, I will restate: he has not taken any PAC or lobbyist money during this campaign.
As to whether he has had lobbyists a bundlers, the claim of the second article, I invite you to check his published list of bundlers against the also public list of registered lobbyists. If you find an overlap, let me know.