It is no great secret that much of the New York Times political and editorial staff is pulling for Hillary.

NY Slimes.........................ah the paper of record

Madness?

THIS IS IOWA

Fark Da Press

Madness? THIS ...IS....IOWA!

Wait... something that is at one point in time is statistically too close to call could be statistically able to be called after new information is acquired?


HOLSY shiat PINKO COMMIE NEW YORK JEWS!

Cowboy Spencer: Madness?

THIS IS IOWA

damn you! I just HAD to go find the Shouty Obama picture instead of just hitting send *sigh*

A lot of returns came in during that ten minutes.

I love prissy blog wars.

Magorn: damn you! I just HAD to go find the Shouty Obama picture instead of just hitting send *sigh*

As I always say - great minds think alike, but nefarious bastards type faster.

So, first the NYT acknowledges the comments of one of their analysts. Then, a little while later, the editorial board agrees that they are going to call the results of the caucus. What's the problem?

One step beyooooooond!

Weren't people calling it with 25% of the precincts reporting? The full text of the comment says that 2/3 had reported at the time the comment was made.

I think he was commenting on things that happened earlier in the day, not things happening at that exact moment.

But I guess it does look kind of silly when you crop it down and put the two headlines next to each other.

Not to mention that in 10 minutes huge amounts of vote data could be turned over. A few big counties send in their numbers, and bam you can easily call it

I guess the robot vote came in...

/Morbo congratulates our gargantuan cyborg president. May death come quickly to his enemies

The NY Times was pretty favorable to Clinton all along. No surprise.

No holier-than-thou-airs lime NYTimes holier-than-thou-airs.

Bill Frist: Wait... something that is at one point in time is statistically too close to call could be statistically able to be called after new information is acquired?


HOLSY shiat PINKO COMMIE NEW YORK JEWS!

silly rabbit, your logic has no effect on the internet message-board-circle-jerk-news-bit outrage!

those damn media outlets passing off crap as news just for views. fark would never do such a thing!

/someone should write a book about this

How many other candidates speak so directly to their platform and ideas without empty rhetoric?

Link (new window)

(not rick roll)

Just wondering, do you Obama fans believe he will be a good President or just a different President?

CNN and the NYT will continue to do everything in their power to see that Hillary wins.

There is no lie too great for them to say in their shameful attempt.

mistervague: So, first the NYT acknowledges the comments of one of their analysts. Then, a little while later, the editorial board agrees that they are going to call the results of the caucus. What's the problem?

That's what I'd like to know.

Fart_Machine: I love prissy blog wars.

Also one where it's a "voting expert" who is quoted by the blog. Maybe the biatches at Gawker are all pissy with their panties in a twist when Ms Hillary got slapped around pretty hard by Obama's 8" victory

RockIsDead: Just wondering, do you Obama fans believe he will be a good President or just a different President?

Absolutely GOOD.


There are plenty of options for "different," hell, even Romney would be "different," considering we've had a Busch in the White House for so many of the years in recent memory.

Let's see... the blog mentions that one "voting expert" called the early predictions "madness." Then THE PAPER officially called Obama as the winner.

Apples and oranges. Just because one person says one thing -- and the paper has the honesty to say so, even though they disagree -- doesn't mean that the paper (or even just one other writer on the staff) can't go and say something different.

So I'm not sure what the problem is here. Subby would have a point if one specific individual said both things. That would clearly be a case of hypocrisy. But that's not the case.

RockIsDead: Just wondering, do you Obama fans believe he will be a good President or just a different President?

Little of column A, little of column B.

RockIsDead: Just wondering, do you Obama fans believe he will be a good President or just a different President?

I'm not inclined to vote for him or anyone because they wear their deodorant a little differently than the candidate on their left. What the man has is a sense of energy, of charisma, that yeah I think will translate to getting things done, with Congress and on his own, and thus I believe he has the makings of a good President.

RockIsDead: Just wondering, do you Obama fans believe he will be a good President or just a different President?

If he's on the ticket, I'll probably vote for him because I think he could do a passable job of bringing diplomacy back to the presidency, and so far he's been a fairly straight shooter. I don't expect him to make waves or do anything impressive, but if he can slow down the train wreck more power to him. Conversely, if every sane canidate takes a lightning bolt and Ron Paul gets on the main ticket, I'll vote for him. Half his ideas seem workable, and the other half...well, that's why we have representative democracy with checks and balances. At least he wants to try some different things. If they don't work, then in four years I vote for someone else.

Just adding to the madness...

RockIsDead Quote 2008-01-04 01:20:37 PM
Just wondering, do you Obama fans believe he will be a good President or just a different President?

Good. He is a centrist dude who would pull the country together (he wouldn't run the kind of "with us or against us" shiat BUsh did) at least a little bit. More importantly, I think he would give the rest of the world a lot of faith in us. Two Bush victories have really damaged the rest of the world's perception of americans (and obviously bush's governemtn has utterly destroyed the world's view of our government).

I believe Obama would be the best candidate to get the world back on our side... which truly is an essential job for the president.

Most of hte platform shiat these candidates whine about won't come down to much. Congress makes the bills, not the President. Even Bush, with a republican congress that treated him like teh second coming of Jesus, couldn't get most of his platforms passed.

As for would be he be different.... compared to whom? I'm sure he'd be an assload different than George Bush, but probably any sane candidate would.

RockIsDead: Just wondering, do you Obama fans believe he will be a good President or just a different President?

As long as it's not Billary. She scares me.

On a semi-related note, on a trip to Vermont around Xmas, I saw my very first (and ONLY) Clinton campaign sign/sticker/etc on the side of Rte 2. This is the only person I have seen that I can peg down is probably a Clinton supporter.

Plenty of love on here for Obama...

And the Iowa caucuses show Obama with 38% of the vote there.

Coincidence?

I'm just bringing that up, because of all the polls we've been barraged with that show Billary with a strong lead.

But...it IS only Iowa.

So far.

Crown_of_Shoes: How many other candidates speak so directly to their platform and ideas without empty rhetoric?

Link (new window)

(not rick roll)

What the heck? That was nothing but empty rhetoric. That was silly.

If you believe...If you believe...If you believe...If you believe...

/ vomit

Ex Parte Gilligan: Fart_Machine: I love prissy blog wars.

Also one where it's a "voting expert" who is quoted by the blog. Maybe the biatches at Gawker are all pissy with their panties in a twist when Ms Hillary got slapped around pretty hard by Obama's 8" victory

He hit her 4 times?

RockIsDead: Just wondering, do you Obama fans believe he will be a good President or just a different President?

I haven't decided who I will vote for, but I like Obama because, despite his lack of experience, he seems to have some conviction in his beliefs, rather than just pandering to the middle.

ichiban: Crown_of_Shoes: How many other candidates speak so directly to their platform and ideas without empty rhetoric?

Link (new window)

(not rick roll)

What the heck? That was nothing but empty rhetoric. That was silly.

If you believe...If you believe...If you believe...If you believe...

/ vomit

In between those parts, however, he talked about education, jobs, lobbyists, etc. With most candidates all I ever hear is the same routine, pie-in-the sky platitudes and impossible goals.

At least Obama is willing to take sides on controversial issues.

Am I the only person who is completely confused by Gawker? what the hell is it? what's the point?

It seems that every time I go to that site, no matter how hard I try, I can't identify with a single written thing on there.

Gawker, wtf?

Crown_of_Shoes: ichiban: Crown_of_Shoes: How many other candidates speak so directly to their platform and ideas without empty rhetoric?

Link (new window)

(not rick roll)

What the heck? That was nothing but empty rhetoric. That was silly.

If you believe...If you believe...If you believe...If you believe...

/ vomit

In between those parts, however, he talked about education, jobs, lobbyists, etc. With most candidates all I ever hear is the same routine, pie-in-the sky platitudes and impossible goals.

At least Obama is willing to take sides on controversial issues.

Obama is against Medical Pot... therefore, I won't vote for him.

Crown_of_Shoes: At least Obama is willing to take sides on controversial issues.

Whichever side is convenient.

He's got a fresh face and charisma, what he doesn't have is any form of plan.

He's the anti-Lieberman. As an extremely conservative (you know, ACTUAL Reagan conservative not this new crap) independent, I found myself looking at Lieberman's ideas and going, "You know, that would probably work". Then I looked at Lieberman's campaign and got sad he really had no chance.

Mr Guy's perfect ticket in the last campaign would have been Lieberman/Powell or Powell/Lieberman, whichever.

Bill Frist: As for would be he be different.... compared to whom? I'm sure he'd be an assload different than George Bush, but probably any sane candidate would.

Bush AND the status quo.

I ask because while I also like his straight forwardness and positive vision, I have my doubts that he won't just get stuck in the Washington muck and mire. Jimmy Carter redux.

Hank Rearden: Crown_of_Shoes: ichiban: Crown_of_Shoes: How many other candidates speak so directly to their platform and ideas without empty rhetoric?

Link (new window)

(not rick roll)

What the heck? That was nothing but empty rhetoric. That was silly.

If you believe...If you believe...If you believe...If you believe...

/ vomit

In between those parts, however, he talked about education, jobs, lobbyists, etc. With most candidates all I ever hear is the same routine, pie-in-the sky platitudes and impossible goals.

At least Obama is willing to take sides on controversial issues.

Obama is against Medical Pot... therefore, I won't vote for him.

Don't be silly, you think any other candidate is going to let you smoke up? Maybe he'll gut the DEA as a bloated and impotent agency and then it won't even matter if you smoke up or not.

Subby makes my case for me that the NYT is crap.

RockIsDead: I ask because while I also like his straight forwardness and positive vision, I have my doubts that he won't just get stuck in the Washington muck and mire.

He's been consistently groomed by invisible behind the scenes handlers that are responsible for every action he takes and every opportunity he's gotten. That frightens me, because I don't get to vote for them, or even know who they are.

He's shown no great evidence of having any actual plans or purpose of his own. He's a felt puppet, which is equally frightening to me as the realization that Bush surrounded himself with brilliant people and promptly ignored them all and drove them off.

Hank Rearden: Am I the only person who is completely confused by Gawker? what the hell is it? what's the point?

It seems that every time I go to that site, no matter how hard I try, I can't identify with a single written thing on there.

Gawker, wtf?

I live in NYC, which it seems to be aimed at, and don't get Gawker. Though the 'Sex-in-the-City' types in town seem to adore it.

Mr Guy Quote 2008-01-04 01:41:22 PM
Crown_of_Shoes: At least Obama is willing to take sides on controversial issues.

Whichever side is convenient.

Uh, you seem to be mistaking Obama for Mitt Romney. I know they have a similar sheen to their faces, but beyond that...


Really I don't get the claims that Obama is empty rhetoric. Yes, he has a lot of it, but so does EVERY politician. Even Fark's favorite "substantive" candidate, Ron Paul, says absolutely nothing when he talks. It is just all "I think people are ready for a change. People are ready for the truth" blah blah. He sound just like Obama.

But that is just how political speeches are in our country. Beyond short clips on youtube, Obama has just as much if not more substance to his campaign than anyone else. Go read his website, he details all of his plans and opinions.

If you want style over substance though, Mike "aw shucks I play guitar and make jokes about Chuck Norris, why not vote for me and i"ll buy you a beer" Huckabee is probably your man.

Was it... Space Madness!?

I'll be glad when this year's over. At this rate, I'll be ready to start swing around a large wooden mallet by election time. Anvil on the head for the next dork that uses an insulting nickname for a candidate...

Crown_of_Shoes: Don't be silly, you think any other candidate is going to let you smoke up? Maybe he'll gut the DEA as a bloated and impotent agency and then it won't even matter if you smoke up or not.

Liberals are against smoking legal drugs (tobacco) but are all about making illegal drugs perfectly acceptable to use. Do I sense a disconnect? It might have to do with the fact that they would rather see the drug dealer on the corner succeed instead of American businessman and the American farmer.

For what it's worth, CNN and MSNBC both held on projections until they were comfortable with Obama and Huckabee, who in fact did win.

RockIsDead Quote 2008-01-04 01:42:09 PM
Bill Frist: As for would be he be different.... compared to whom? I'm sure he'd be an assload different than George Bush, but probably any sane candidate would.

Bush AND the status quo.

I ask because while I also like his straight forwardness and positive vision, I have my doubts that he won't just get stuck in the Washington muck and mire. Jimmy Carter redux.

Probably more like JFK redux. Obama provides people with hope and inspration, which really can go a long way in politics.

As to your question, in my personal opinion I doubt Obama would provide some huge change. However, I think he is far more likely to cause a real change than any of the other democratic candidates or any of the republicans (outside of Ron Paul, who doesn't have any chance of winning).