http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/26/dems.switch.poll/index.html

It is a Catch-22 for the Democrats, I think.

If Hillary wins the bid (she probably won't), Obama supporters may not vote in November. If Obama wins, Hillary supporters will vote for McCain.

Also, what happens if McCain picks another centerist VP, like Lieberman?

Toughts?

If McCain will become president, there will be great tensions in war with Russia and it will escalate to another war in one of the countries like Iran for example...

If McCain will become president, there will be great tensions in war with Russia and it will escalate to another war in one of the countries like Iran for example...

Sure, Draq. 1) The USA really couldn't hope to have any meaningful victory in conflict with Russia (neither could Russia)-- there will therefore be no conflict and 2) Anything you hear out of the leadership of the two nations is done for the benefit of the public--who need such things. The relationship between current president Bush and de facto president Putin is really quite comfy.

~String

Divided we fall

McCain for President!!! :xctd:

Divided we fall

McCain for President!!! :xctd:

Actually it is something we call freedom to choose and freedom to elect whomever we want here. It seems that many other countries are under dictators or other forms of undemocratic rule that at least we have choices every 4 years unlike others who have none.

100 YEARS IN IRAQ!! :xctd::xctd::xctd:

I'm talking about free elections not contrived ones.

Sink or swim, its your country. :shrug:

No surprises here, (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=73584) actually.

Short answer: yes.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/26/dems.switch.poll/index.html

It is a Catch-22 for the Democrats, I think.

If Hillary wins the bid (she probably won't), Obama supporters may not vote in November. If Obama wins, Hillary supporters will vote for McCain.


I wouldn't put too much stock in that poll at this time. It does not match up with general election polls with Hillary vs. McCain or Obama vs. McCain.

If Hillary wins the bid, Obama will support her, and vice versa. If worse comes to worse, one will be VP for the other.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/26/dems.switch.poll/index.html

It is a Catch-22 for the Democrats, I think.

If Hillary wins the bid (she probably won't), Obama supporters may not vote in November. If Obama wins, Hillary supporters will vote for McCain.

Also, what happens if McCain picks another centerist VP, like Lieberman?

Toughts?

The Democrats will have to do a "Karl Rove" on McCain and smear him mercilessly. Expect to hear McCain's sanity questioned. McCain's "U.S. in Iraq for 100 years" quote is going to come back to haunt him. Every McCain misstatement will be brought up.

Some Democrats may not vote in November, but they will not vote for McCain.

Sink or swim, its your country. :shrug:

No surprises here, (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=73584) actually.
Unfortunately it is everybody's country.

The relationship between current president Bush and de facto president Putin is really quite comfy.


"public comfy"...

ICBMS in Poland targeted at Russia are not a "comfy" thing...

McCain has had a very cozy, friendly ride from the media so far. If that continues, he's got a good chance of beating even Obama (I don't think McCain has ever polled behind Hillary).

Neither McCain not Hillary has much chance of governing well. Obama has a somwhat better shot at it. The question is media coverage. It's been disturbingly similar to the past two elections so far.

I don't know if this will help or hurt:

NPR. "Top Conservative Scholar Kmiec Backs Obama". Day to Day. March 25, 2008. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89042123

There's audio involved. Sorry I don't have a transcript. To the other, though, Kmiec's transformation was underway last month when he published this one:

Kmiec, Douglas W. "Reaganites for Obama?" Slate. February 13, 2008. http://www.slate.com/id/2184378/

Now, don't think me daft, but when Obama gave his victory remarks (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqoFwZUp5vc) in Iowa calling upon America to "choose hope over fear and to choose unity over division," he was standing squarely in the shoes of the "Great Communicator." Notwithstanding all of Bill Clinton's self-possessed heckling to the contrary, Obama was right—Reagan was a "transformative" president. Reagan liked to tell us he was proudest of his ability to make America feel good about itself. He did. Catholic sensibility tells me Obama wants it to deserve that feeling.

(Kmiec (http://www.slate.com/id/2184378/))

wouldn't put too much stock in that poll at this time. It does not match up with general election polls with Hillary vs. McCain or Obama vs. McCain.

So, essentially ``I don't believe your poll, but if YOU believe MY poll...'' Right?

If worse comes to worse, one will be VP for the other.

Are you kidding? There is absolutely no chance of this happening.

This is like saying ``Sure, McCain will end up as Bush's VP'' back in 2000.

You must be on crack.

I don't know if this will help or hurt:

NPR. "Top Conservative Scholar Kmiec Backs Obama". Day to Day. March 25, 2008. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89042123

There's audio involved. Sorry I don't have a transcript. To the other, though, Kmiec's transformation was underway last month when he published this one:

Kmiec, Douglas W. "Reaganites for Obama?" Slate. February 13, 2008. http://www.slate.com/id/2184378/

Yeah I've heard some of this, but I don't know. I don't think 28% of McCain backers are jumping up and down to support Obama.

McCain for President

Ben to make an outside observation this is why we dont have directly elected leaders, the parlimentry branches of the parties decide on there leaders and we vote for the members of our electorits and then the party with the most members in the house forms goverment (welll MOSTLY anyway, its SLIGHTLY more complicated than that)

Also preferential elections would get rid of this party infighting. Of course im not so sure that this sort of infighting is bad, it could eventually lead to the disintrigration of the parties which could well be a good thing, especially if you can find a way to eliminate electrol funding (like giving a set amount to every candiate out of the public purse and making that there ONLY source of funding). I maybe overreaching with the last though

So, essentially ``I don't believe your poll, but if YOU believe MY poll...'' Right?

Well, my poll is an average of polls! Most polls have McCain, Obama, Clinton all in a dead heat for general election scenarios. I don't think that'd be possible if ~15% of democrats are going to switch to the republican.

On top of that, I'm suspicious of this poll. It just seems plausible that at this bitter point for the Democrats they are overreacting. Most democrats loathe McCain, and if they don't now, it won't take much in the general election to get them to change.

As an Obama supporter I can tell you I'll be a lot nicer to Hillary once she loses :p If she wins, I'll easily vote for her.



Are you kidding? There is absolutely no chance of this happening.

This is like saying ``Sure, McCain will end up as Bush's VP'' back in 2000.

If it is seen as something that will repair the divisiveness damage they will do it. Otherwise I think it is a bad idea.

iirc, McCain did support Bush after he lost. I expect his supporters went overwhelmingly to Bush, but I don't know.

McCain for President

I'm glad you won't be voting.

I'm glad you won't be voting.

I certainly can. Then again, I suppose not. You must be a citizen to vote, right?

Anyway, McCain is the only sensible guy

McCain for President

Are you fucking serious?

I certainly can. Then again, I suppose not. You must be a citizen to vote, right?

Anyway, McCain is the only sensible guy

if by sensible you mean fucking nuts than yes you would be correct

Are you fucking serious?

If I were American, I certainly wouldn't want a liberal in office; McCain is sensible, very family-oriented, very patriotic, very faithful, he is good for AMERICANS.

If I were American, I certainly wouldn't want a liberal in office; McCain is sensible, very family-oriented, very patriotic, very faithful, he is good for AMERICANS.

I hope you support him even after he's invaded your "terrorist-harboring" nation.

If I were American, I certainly wouldn't want a liberal in office; McCain is sensible, very family-oriented, very patriotic, very faithful, he is good for AMERICANS.

Very patriotic?? That aint a good thing whatsoever,Family oriented?? Who gives a damn,what can he do about the shitty economy?? Faithful?? How do you know?? sounds to be your just speaking out of thin air.Mccain is old,unappealing,lacks the debate skills to match Obama and he has no""IT""factor like Obama.People really want change,they are tired of the same ole WAR VETERAN/SERVED FOR OUR COUNTRY serves best as Commander in Cheif,protect the country from terrrorist crap,YAWNS,YAWNS,YAWNS.

If McCain will become president, there will be great tensions in war with Russia and it will escalate to another war in one of the countries like Iran for example...

And what "terrible" thing did McCain or the U.S. do to Russia ?
Russia's panic attack about U.S.'s proposed missle DEFENSE system in Europe for defense against rogue nuclear missles is their problem.

Iran's exterminate Israel rhetoric and probable pursuit of nuclear weapons is forcing a confrontation, NOT the U.S. or McCain.

I hope you support him even after he's invaded your "terrorist-harboring" nation.

I am a Syrian; from an American perspective, McCain is the best candidate; he is the only one who keeps some sense of respectability and morality in mind.

Very patriotic?? That aint a good thing whatsoever,Family oriented?? Who gives a damn,what can he do about the shitty economy?? Faithful?? How do you know?? sounds to be your just speaking out of thin air.Mccain is old,unappealing,lacks the debate skills to match Obama and he has no""IT""factor like Obama.People really want change,they are tired of the same ole WAR VETERAN/SERVED FOR OUR COUNTRY serves best as Commander in Cheif,protect the country from terrrorist crap,YAWNS,YAWNS,YAWNS.

Patriotism is the greatest duty a man owes to his nation; who gives a damn about family? I do, as well as many people who want a sensible, disciplined, and crime-free society.

I don't care for "IT" factor, if the leader is a liberal asshole who isn't a true American anyway; McCain is the best so far.

And what "terrible" thing did McCain or the U.S. do to Russia ?
Russia's panic attack about U.S.'s proposed missle DEFENSE system in Europe for defense against rogue nuclear missles is their problem.

Iran's exterminate Israel rhetoric and probable pursuit of nuclear weapons is forcing a confrontation, NOT the U.S. or McCain.

well you have shown you don't know why the russians are agitated. the missle batteries are on the polish-russian border no where near where they would need to be to intercept missles from the countries we have said it is to protect us from. to the russian mind it is viewed as a preview for aggressive action against them.

Patriotism is the greatest duty a man owes to his nation; who gives a damn about family? I do, as well as many people who want a sensible, disciplined, and crime-free society.

I don't care for "IT" factor, if the leader is a liberal asshole who isn't a true American anyway; McCain is the best so far.

um america was founded on liberal/progressive ideas. and mccain has some ethical skeltons in his closet.

well you have shown you don't know why the russians are agitated. the missle batteries are on the polish-russian border no where near where they would need to be to intercept missles from the countries we have said it is to protect us from. to the russian mind it is viewed as a preview for aggressive action against them.

Missles in Poland can shoot down missles on their way to Europe, look at a map......
Nowhere have I heard or seen that these missles are at a location where they can "only" be used for the purpose of shooting down Russian missles.

I am a Syrian; from an American perspective, McCain is the best candidate; he is the only one who keeps some sense of respectability and morality in mind.

Yeah, I know you're Syrian. He's also one of the (few) idiots who believe Syria is a terrorist-harboring, seemingly dangerous nation. Who cares if he is "patriotic" or has "strong faith"? The man clearly has anger-management issues, is an overzealous Zionist, sees the Iraq war enduring for 100+ years if necessary, and is showing great hostility in his dialogue against Iran. Seriously, how the hell could a Middle Easterner like yourself support this cancer? Show some character, man.

the Democrats will win in 2008

Vote 57 to 43

Reason: IRAQ

um america was founded on liberal/progressive ideas. and mccain has some ethical skeltons in his closet.

Progressive, but liberal is not progressive; liberal is the belief in personal liberty as the most important political goal (basically, selfishness), without regards to society as a whole. The Founding Fathers were very devout Christians, and were, Washington at least, Conservative. Liberty cannot come at the loss of common decency, respect, and morality; and although morality is subjective, in society it cannot be.

Missles in Poland can shoot down missles on their way to Europe, look at a map......
Nowhere have I heard or seen that these missles are at a location where they can "only" be used for the purpose of shooting down Russian missles.

but there location of shooting missles from the mid east is not that good. and sticking the batterys along the border of 2 countries that have had numerous conflicts of hundreds of years is going to cause some tension in the area.

Yeah, I know you're Syrian. He's also one of the (few) idiots who believe Syria is a terrorist-harboring, seemingly dangerous nation. Who cares if he is "patriotic" or has "strong faith"? The man clearly has anger-management issues, is an overzealous Zionist, sees the Iraq war enduring for 100+ years if necessary, and is showing great hostility in his dialogue against Iran. Seriously, how the hell could a Middle Easterner like yourself support this cancer? Show some character, man.

I don't support any American politician; I did state, however, that from an AMERICAN perspective (i.e, what's best for Americans), he is the best they have; no one else is keeping tradition and respect and morality in mind.

Therefore, he is the best candidate for Americans as of right now

but there location of shooting missles from the mid east is not that good. and sticking the batterys along the border of 2 countries that have had numerous conflicts of hundreds of years is going to cause some tension in the area.


Sorry, but do you have proof somewhere that the missles will be "right along the border with Russia" ?

I don't support any American politician; I did state, however, that from an AMERICAN perspective (i.e, what's best for Americans), he is the best they have; no one else is keeping tradition and respect and morality in mind.

Therefore, he is the best candidate for Americans as of right now

What the hell? No he's not! He'll just continue with the Iraq war, and start new conflicts, given the opportunity of Presidency. The last thing Americans need is another war. The detriment of this devastation of a war is being felt by the American middle class. Their economy is on thin ice, their military is stretched to the breaking point, and they are abhorred internationally, yet McCain (a man with no economical knowledge/background) is an advocate for "defense against terrorism". He'll continue where Bush and the shitty job he's done left off.

What the hell? No he's not! He'll just continue with the Iraq war, and start new conflicts, given the opportunity of Presidency. The last thing Americans need is another war. The detriment of this devastation of a war is being felt by the American middle class. Their economy is on thin ice, their military is stretched to the breaking point, and they are abhorred internationally, yet McCain (a man with no economical knowledge/background) is an advocate for "defense against terrorism". He'll continue where Bush and the shitty job he's done left off.

The Iraq war cannot be ended, therefore it must be continued; although I am against occupation, the American troops are, at least, killing off the terrorists.

And defense = more important than economy. As does family. Economy is money, worthless until we give it worth; defense is the defense of the homeland.

Also, since I am not a Muslim I do not care if he topples "terrorist harboring regimes"; so long as he stays the hell away from my country and kills none of my people and doesn't interfere with Syria, I'm fine with that. Iran, Saudi, Turkey, though, those are ripe for the picking (or invading)

Syria would be better off as a Christian nation anyway

A traitor? A traitor to who? I love Syria with all my spirit; how am I a traitor?

well Kadark sees you favoritism of American presence as sign of a traitor

well Kadark sees you favoritism of American presence as sign of a traitor

It's either American presence or terrorist presence, if I have to pick one, I'll pick American presence; though both of them need to get the hell out and let the Iraqis rebuild.

A traitor? A traitor to who? I love Syria with all my spirit; how am I a traitor?

Because you're supporting a man who will wage war with Syria in the long run. THAT'S why.

Progressive, but liberal is not progressive; liberal is the belief in personal liberty as the most important political goal (basically, selfishness), without regards to society as a whole. The Founding Fathers were very devout Christians, and were, Washington at least, Conservative. Liberty cannot come at the loss of common decency, respect, and morality; and although morality is subjective, in society it cannot be.

many of the founding fathers made scathing remarks about chrisianity and religion in general

Because you're supporting a man who will wage war with Syria in the long run. THAT'S why.

I'm supporting no one; I'm saying that FOR AMERICANS, McCain is best; for me, I couldnt' care less. He'll be dead before he can enter Syria.

many of the founding fathers made scathing remarks about chrisianity and religion in general

And yet they were practicing Protestants, as many of the time were.....

Face it, Protestantism has had massive impact on American tradition and culture and morality and standards

well you have shown you don't know why the russians are agitated. the missle batteries are on the polish-russian border no where near where they would need to be to intercept missles from the countries we have said it is to protect us from.
1) buy a globe
2) locate the US and Iran
3) draw the shortest line between them that you can
4) report back on what countries you intersected

(Hint: The world is ROUND.)

1) buy a globe
2) locate the US and Iran
3) draw the shortest line between them that you can
4) report back on what countries you intersected

(Hint: The world is ROUND.)

hint the reason given wasn't the missles where being fired at the states but our european allies.

ICBMS in Poland targeted at Russia are not a "comfy" thing...
No !

Are they really doing this ?

SWEET !


I'd launch the sons of bitches 10 seconds after the damned things became operational just out of spite...

Here's yer Gazprom pipeline ya sons of bitches !

Buh - Blammy !!!!

hee hee hee hee hee !!!!
:D:D:D

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/04/07/hillary/index1.html

Hillary would win against McCain, Obama would lose. It is the electoral college, stupid!

Yeah, I know you're Syrian.
Translation: STFU&SD
He's also one of the (few) idiots who believe Syria is a terrorist-harboring, seemingly dangerous nation.
Translation: He ain't Lebanese. He should just STFU&SD. We don't need another idiot wiping the floor with our sorry asses.
Who cares if he is "patriotic" or has "strong faith"?
Translation: Don't encourage him, for Allah's sake.
The man clearly has anger-management issues,...
Translation: He is seriously beyond Allah's control.
...is an overzealous Zionist,
Translation: He hates all the wrong people.
...sees the Iraq war enduring for 100+ years if necessary,
Translation: He's too worthy an adversary.
...and is showing great hostility in his dialogue against Iran.
Translation: He's too likely to kick more ass.
Seriously, how the hell could a Middle Easterner like yourself support this cancer? Show some character, man.
Translation: Be afraid because irrationality is what best defines us. Rational people are scary and can unfairly kick our asses, especially after we've gone seriously postal on them. Don't give away our victim status. It's all we have to hide behind.

Hillary would win against McCain, Obama would lose. It is the electoral college, stupid! Clinton has been polling behind McCain in head to head matchups, both in electoral and popular vote, since the first polls on the topic.

So has Obama, but Obama has an upside - he gains votes as people become more familiar with him. Hillary has no such upside of unfamiliarity - what you see now is what you're going to get.

The article you posted contains a fair amount of nonsense, but the main problem is that it treats Clinton running against Obama as Hillary running against McCain. Against McCain she will not have the press coverage bias in her favor, nor the advantage of racial bigotry to counter the so often correlative Hillary-hate, nor the advantage of greater familiarity.

1) buy a globe
2) locate the US and Iran
3) draw the shortest line between them that you can Wait a minute - you're claiming that these ABM systems are supposed to be there to nail Iranian ICBMs ? C'mon - -