good. Casey's name still carries a lot of weight in PA.

Clinton is dying the death of 100,000,000,000 paper cuts - and she's giving the paper cuts to herself.

Meanwhile, John McCain gets no press and discovers he has no fundraising ability whatsoever.

electric kool aid acid test caravan across Pennsylbama

More like 'Brother Love's travelling salvation show'.

Excellent.

As a Pittsburgher, that makes me really really happy. The Casey name carries a whole lot of weight in PA.

/Sick of the Clinton supporters in Market Square
//They can't answer a single questions about issues.

Good.

Okay headline, too submitter. Ken Kesey/Bob Casey, close enough, I guess.

Everyone on the bus?

Here's what I posted in the other thread about this topic, which is also green (heck of a job, Modie)

Bob Casey is one of my favorite senators, because he caused this picture to be taken:

Yee! F*ck you, Rendell!

I'm surprised that any Casey is still a democrat after the way the dad was treated by the party.

Bob who? That guy hasn't done shiat since he's been elected.

/still better than Santorum, I suppose

SilentStrider: good. Casey's name still carries a lot of weight in PA.

moops: Meanwhile, John McCain gets no press

Lucky for him, given all of his recent crazy-talk.

what_now: Bob Casey is one of my favorite senators, because he caused this picture to be taken:

Yey! It's Harry Potter and the Poo'd Pants.

Which would probably make a good avatar for Harry Pooter.

(if someone didn't already have it)

I find it amazing that Obamaniacs treat Hillary so poorly, I mean, yeah this is a close election and she as well as Obama are pulling all the stunts to win, but once one of them clinches the nomination they are going to need the other's supporters to beat John McCain in November, and yet their actions, as well as those of some Clinton's supporters ensure that regardless of who wins enough will chose not to support the democratic nominee, or will even vote for McCain. If that happens then this will be a Pyrrhic victory because although your man/woman may come out ahead they will eventually lose when it really counts. It's even more disillusioning because when you look at their policies and proposed programs, they are almost identical. Think about the coming general election before you allow the vitriol against the other candidate to spew from your mind and onto your computer screen, both candidates will need the other's supporters to win.

Shadow writer: I find it amazing that Obamaniacs treat Hillary so poorly

The Democratic party is stuck in a reimagining of the the 1972 Democratic race, that's why.

Shadow writer: I find it amazing that Obamaniacs treat Hillary so poorly, I mean, yeah this is a close election and she as well as Obama are pulling all the stunts to win, but once one of them clinches the nomination they are going to need the other's supporters to beat John McCain in November, and yet their actions, as well as those of some Clinton's supporters ensure that regardless of who wins enough will chose not to support the democratic nominee, or will even vote for McCain. If that happens then this will be a Pyrrhic victory because although your man/woman may come out ahead they will eventually lose when it really counts. It's even more disillusioning because when you look at their policies and proposed programs, they are almost identical. Think about the coming general election before you allow the vitriol against the other candidate to spew from your mind and onto your computer screen, both candidates will need the other's supporters to win.

Hillary said almost this very thing the other day. Methinks she is prepping her consolation speech.

Shostie: The Democratic party is stuck in a reimagining of the the 1972 Democratic race, that's why.

If there was a popular incumbant for the GOP, you would be right. But instead, the GOP is represented by a geriatric Bush-fellating warmonger.

OneNutSaloon: Hillary said almost this very thing the other day. Methinks she is prepping her consolation speech.

We've heard that song before. She's not dropping out until the bitter end. She's determined to win, no matter what the cost is to the party.

I'm sure that Casey Jr is a judas too, right Carville?

Barnacles!: img518.imageshack.us

Ya Rly. :P

Shadow writer: this is a close election and she as well as Obama are pulling all the stunts to win

What stunts has Obama pulled? I haven't seen any dirty tactics from his side. It seems like he's trying to represent the will of the people and Hillary is trying to win the nomination.

Shadow writer: I find it amazing that Obamaniacs treat Hillary so poorly, I mean, yeah this is a close election and she as well as Obama are pulling all the stunts to win, but once one of them clinches the nomination they are going to need the other's supporters to beat John McCain in November, and yet their actions, as well as those of some Clinton's supporters ensure that regardless of who wins enough will chose not to support the democratic nominee, or will even vote for McCain. If that happens then this will be a Pyrrhic victory because although your man/woman may come out ahead they will eventually lose when it really counts. It's even more disillusioning because when you look at their policies and proposed programs, they are almost identical. Think about the coming general election before you allow the vitriol against the other candidate to spew from your mind and onto your computer screen, both candidates will need the other's supporters to win.

Pundits like to play up this point for ratings but there are some flaws in it.

In previous elections, yes this was the case. However at the time Americans perceived themselves differently. In the 2004 election the nation was divided fairly evenly at a 40-40-20 split R-D-I. Current polling shows a 60-30-10 D-R-I.

The implications for this are significant. Even if republicans take 75% of self identified independents they would still fall short. These numbers are backed up by primary turn out where democrat have outpaced republican in every case even when there were competitive races. Often times both obama and hillary would have move votes than the top republican candidate.

So yes if one candidate alienates 20% of the other's supporters it will make a closer election. However, if current trends continue it won't impact there being a democratic president in 2009.

Shadow writer: I find it amazing that Obamaniacs treat Hillary so poorly, I mean, yeah this is a close election and she as well as Obama are pulling all the stunts to win, but once one of them clinches the nomination they are going to need the other's supporters to beat John McCain in November, and yet their actions, as well as those of some Clinton's supporters ensure that regardless of who wins enough will chose not to support the democratic nominee, or will even vote for McCain. If that happens then this will be a Pyrrhic victory because although your man/woman may come out ahead they will eventually lose when it really counts. It's even more disillusioning because when you look at their policies and proposed programs, they are almost identical. Think about the coming general election before you allow the vitriol against the other candidate to spew from your mind and onto your computer screen, both candidates will need the other's supporters to win.


Here's the thing...
Before she started campaigning, my complaint with Hillary was single-issue (albeit a very LARGE issue: her crusade against video games with Lieberman, and being a game designer, that hits kinda close to home), and if she had won the nomination it would have been acceptible to me. It seems however that everytime she opens her mouth, my opinion of her falls even further. Her biggest enemy this campaign has been herself.

Yes, I do wish the negativity was removed from the campaign, and I daresay that had it been clean from the start, Hillary would probably be ahead right now. As it is though, despite the similarities (there are key significant policy differences, though), Hillary, for me personally, is an unacceptible choice.

Shadow writer: I find it amazing that Obamaniacs treat Hillary so poorly, I mean, yeah this is a close election and she as well as Obama are pulling all the stunts to win

Another person who hasn't been paying attention.

Think about the coming general election before you allow the vitriol against the other candidate to spew from your mind and onto your computer screen, both candidates will need the other's supporters to win.

Tell Hillary this, because she is the one who doesn't seem to get it.

Look, as for policies, Clinton would be OK, but her leadership and implementation would be just like Bill and W - lots of lies, coverups, distortion, demands to do things her way, instead of working with congress and attempting to inspire and lead. Also, it's not all about policy, it's about decision making ability. Hillary has shown pretty abysmal capability there. What if there is a crisis with Syria or Lebanon? Will she send in the troops just because she doesn't want to be seen as weak? Yes, no doubt whatsoever.

Obama doesn't seem to give a damn what Fox News thinks. He's escaped the "why are you hitting yourself" democrat crowd. That's why some of us want him in there so bad.

moops: If there was a popular incumbant for the GOP, you would be right. But instead, the GOP is represented by a geriatric Bush-fellating warmonger.

That's irrelevant. By fighting all the way to the convention, they're shooting themselves in the foot. End of story.

Shadow writer: I find it amazing that Obamaniacs treat Hillary so poorly,

Look, no person or party OWNS my vote. Sure, I've never actually voted for a Republican in a state or national election, and I can't see myself ever doing so (in their current incarnation), but that doesn't mean Hillary Clinton DESERVES my vote.

I will NEVER cast a vote for someone who voted for the IWR. It is my line in the sand. I held my nose and voted for Kerry, and all I got was another 4 years of Smirky. I will NOT do it again.

Before Obama declared, before HILLARY declared, I said I wouldn't vote for her BECAUSE of that vote. She feels that it's "her vote" that the democrats "have me". No. No they don't.

Shadow Writer

I find it amazing that Obamaniacs treat Hillary so poorly, I mean, yeah this is a close election and she as well as Obama are pulling all the stunts to win, but once one of them clinches the nomination they are going to need the other's supporters to beat John McCain in November, and yet their actions, as well as those of some Clinton's supporters ensure that regardless of who wins enough will chose not to support the democratic nominee, or will even vote for McCain. If that happens then this will be a Pyrrhic victory because although your man/woman may come out ahead they will eventually lose when it really counts. It's even more disillusioning because when you look at their policies and proposed programs, they are almost identical. Think about the coming general election before you allow the vitriol against the other candidate to spew from your mind and onto your computer screen, both candidates will need the other's supporters to win.

Their proposed policies are similar, but I believe that the way one campaigns affects our government and our country as well.

Obama has consistently tried to elevate his campaign into something more intelligent and honest. Even McCain, wrongheaded as he may be on the issues I hold dear, has done the same. Hillary has used scorched earth tactics that cause division, and ultimately if elected, will cause stagnation, and more importantly, a repeat of same in 2012, 2016 and so on.

Until we as the American people refuse to allow this, scorched earth, dumbed down, spiteful, wedge-issue-driven politics will continue. That is why I will not condone her campaign with my vote should she be the nominee.

An_Innocent_Primate: Shadow writer: this is a close election and she as well as Obama are pulling all the stunts to win

What stunts has Obama pulled? I haven't seen any dirty tactics from his side. It seems like he's trying to represent the will of the people and Hillary is trying to win the nomination.


He's a politician, he's done things just as Hillary has. He's just been smarter about how he has dealt his blows. And both are trying to win the nomination, and the fact that the race is so close, Obama is only leading by less than 150 delegates, goes to show that they are both representing the will of the voters. There are still enough states where things can change and Sen. Clinton can win enough votes to prevent Sen. Obama from being able to clinch the nomination without having to negotiate it for it.

As for what he has done, it has been subtle things, like allowing surrogates to use race as an issue to divert criticism away from him, while allowing him to also be the post-racial candidate. He's been smart about it and it has worked. I mean, many of the things that the Clintons have said have not been anywhere near racist, and I say this as a minority and an Obama supporter, yet they were played up as such by his surrogates even as he called for moving beyond these issues. It was smart, but given the nature and sensitivity of the topic, it was dirty.

Shadow writer: allowing surrogates to use race as an issue to divert criticism away from him,

cite an example. And don't say Rev. Write.

what_now: Bob Casey is one of my favorite senators, because he caused this picture to be taken:

and this one:

what_now: Look, no person or party OWNS my vote. Sure, I've never actually voted for a Republican in a state or national election, and I can't see myself ever doing so (in their current incarnation), but that doesn't mean Hillary Clinton DESERVES my vote.

I will NEVER cast a vote for someone who voted for the IWR. It is my line in the sand. I held my nose and voted for Kerry, and all I got was another 4 years of Smirky. I will NOT do it again.

Before Obama declared, before HILLARY declared, I said I wouldn't vote for her BECAUSE of that vote. She feels that it's "her vote" that the democrats "have me". No. No they don't.

So given the alternative of a Clinton presidency (assuming she wins the nomination) or a McCain presidency, you would rather have him win, even though he is far more likely to go to war with Iran, and to keep the US in Iraq longer than either Hillary or Obama. That sounds too much like shooting your nose to spite your face to me. I'm not arguing that she has, or should have your vote, but rather that given the alternative it seems like the lesser evil, if she were to win the nomination, would be to vote for her over Sen. McCain to prevent a worst outcome.

dgc360: and this one:

ehhh...the first pic has the boy looking like he's just experienced surprise buttsecks.

Shadow writer: but rather that given the alternative it seems like the lesser evil,

No. I'm done with this "lesser evil " crap.

Barnacles!: SilentStrider: good. Casey's name still carries a lot of weight in PA.

Did I somehow miss your glorious return?

Shadow writer: He's a politician, he's done things just as Hillary has. He's just been smarter about how he has dealt his blows.

Ohhhhh, that answered my question.

Look, I am sure that Obama hasn't been 100% squeaky clean in all of this, but I haven't seen him resort to flat-out lying, cheating, or dirty tactics. Granted, I am both pro-Obama and anti-Hillary, so I am sure that I perceive things differently than a Hillary supporter would, or even someone with no dog in the hunt. But there hasn't been a point in this campaign where I've said "oh, I wish Obama hadn't said/done that, it's old school, dirty politics that I want to see end." To me, he seems to have stayed true to his promise of rising above such tactics.

Shadow writer: So given the alternative of a Clinton presidency (assuming she wins the nomination) or a McCain presidency, you would rather have him win, even though he is far more likely to go to war with Iran, and to keep the US in Iraq longer than either Hillary or Obama. That sounds too much like shooting your nose to spite your face to me. I'm not arguing that she has, or should have your vote, but rather that given the alternative it seems like the lesser evil, if she were to win the nomination, would be to vote for her over Sen. McCain to prevent a worst outcome.

My vote will go to Barack Obama in November, whether or not he is on the ballot. If that means McCain wins, so be it. Aside from a few wedge issues, I don't see a difference between Hillary and McCain.

/Except maybe the loose skin and old balls...gross!
//But he might have a five-year plan.

Shadow writer: So given the alternative of a Clinton presidency (assuming she wins the nomination) or a McCain presidency, you would rather have him win, even though he is far more likely to go to war with Iran, and to keep the US in Iraq longer than either Hillary or Obama. That sounds too much like shooting your nose to spite your face to me. I'm not arguing that she has, or should have your vote, but rather that given the alternative it seems like the lesser evil, if she were to win the nomination, would be to vote for her over Sen. McCain to prevent a worst outcome.

Kodos baby. It's really the only choice.

/He has always been the only choice
//He will always be the only choice

Shostie: That's irrelevant. By fighting all the way to the convention, they're shooting themselves in the foot. End of story.

No it won't - it just guarantees that the Democrats get all the press until the nomination is decided.

That PennsylTUCKY to you Subby. And you are only allowed to use that term if you have eaten/can identify the ingredients of Scrapple

Magorn: That PennsylTUCKY to you Subby. And you are only allowed to use that term if you have eaten/can identify the ingredients of Scrapple

That would never get greenlit though. Where's Drew from again?

GIS for electric kool aid.... WTF???



But seriously, great book, the one i read looked like this, thought there were several covers...

Neurochemist:
Kodos baby. It's really the only choice.

/He has always been the only choice
//He will always be the only choice

Don't blame me...I'm voting for Kang...

One more dunk for ObamaRama!

Magorn: That PennsylTUCKY to you Subby. And you are only allowed to use that term if you have eaten/can identify the ingredients of Scrapple

I know it's what's left of the pig after you cut the main stuff like the bacon and ham and etc. Is that close enough?

what_now: dgc360: and this one:

ehhh...the first pic has the boy looking like he's just experienced surprise buttsecks.


Oh no! According to Rick the next step is bestiality!

vernonFL: More like 'Brother Love's travelling salvation show'.

More like the freak show at the circus with the guy biting the heads off of live chickens.

what_now: cite an example. And don't say Rev. Write.

Bill Clinton saying that Sen. Obama's opposition to the Iraq War was a fairy tale, because he had voted essentially the same as Sen. Clinton since getting to the senate, meaning funding the war. Somehow, this mutated into Bill Clinton calling MLK's dream a fairy tale when it was clear that was not what he said. He directly selected Sen. Obama's opposition to the Iraq war, when he said it was a fairy tale, but Sen. Obama surrogates used the race card against him to deflect the valid point that Sen. Obama had voted exactly like Sen. Clinton on Iraq once he came into the senate.

A more recent example was when Bill Clinton said that it would be nice to have two candidates for the presidency, a republican and democrat who everyone acknowledged loved America so that they could get away from the silliness of recent days and focus on the issues that matter to Americans. That immediately sent out Sen. Obama's surrogates spinning the comments to mean, that Pres. Clinton was questioning Sen. Obama's patriotism, which was not the case. If you look at the actual text, he only meant that he wanted to get past the pettiness and onto actual issues. Of course he was referencing his wife, because he wants her to win, not because he did not think or mean to imply that Sen. Obama was not patriotic. In both cases, such controversy has shifted focus to Sen. Clinton away from Sen. Obama, including his admission that he had sat through Rev. wright's sermons where he made comments like the one's we've seen broadcast, even though earlier he had said he did not know about them until recently.

To be sure, Sen. Clinton has done many things as well, like deflecting questions about Bosnia by making a statement on Rev. wright, but the race card seems to have been used very effectively by Sen. obama until recently to deflect criticism of his campagin.

Still, I do support him, but I wish people would cease looking at him as if he was without fault, and just admit that he is, like Sen. Clinton, a politician. A better one, sure, but a politician nonetheless.

An_Innocent_Primate: Ohhhhh, that answered my question.

You obviously missed the rest of the post, or the one that followed it...

As for what he has done, it has been subtle things, like allowing surrogates to use race as an issue to divert criticism away from him, while allowing him to also be the post-racial candidate. He's been smart about it and it has worked. I mean, many of the things that the Clintons have said have not been anywhere near racist, and I say this as a minority and an Obama supporter, yet they were played up as such by his surrogates even as he called for moving beyond these issues. It was smart, but given the nature and sensitivity of the topic, it was dirty.