This board has been transferred to www.wsc.co.uk,

    why not join us there

One Touch Football - Archive   
my profile | directory login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» One Touch Football - Archive » World » Super Tuesday was SO last week. (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 24 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ...  22  23  24   
Author Topic: Super Tuesday was SO last week.
G-Man
Member
Member # 104

 - posted      Profile for G-Man     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
John McCain is toast, and Mitt might come back.

Apparently honest John has been getting a little too friendly with a lobbyist.

Posts: 22308 | From: one floor to another | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lardinho
Member
Member # 1208

 - posted      Profile for Lardinho     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I've got the same fears as you about trade, AG. For some reason there's an old-school union line in protectionism, despite the lack of evidence that it does anything other than completely destroy trade. John Edwards was strong on this last time around, and has probably dragged the others onto his playing field.

It's the one place where Obama really worries me, and where I'd imagine Clinton is a little more worldly wise.

Posts: 4013 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Antonio Gramsci
Member
Member # 11024

 - posted      Profile for Antonio Gramsci     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Sadly, not so
Posts: 1762 | From: the further reaches of sleep deprivation | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ursus arctos
Member
Member # 1452

 - posted      Profile for ursus arctos     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
That aspect of Democratic rhetoric has been around for quite a while, and tends to get extra attention when campaigns focus on states like Ohio, in which it plays very well. I'm not convinced that a Democratic administration would actually take such drastic action.

Did anyone actually watch last night's debate? I've only seemed brief clips, but HRC in particular seemed quite ill-tempered, and Russert's discourse of Farrakhan verged on the bizarre.

Posts: 18670 | From: mediolanum | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Reed
Member
Member # 55

 - posted      Profile for Reed     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I thought NAFTA was unpopular in Canada.

I don't expect it to be "thrown into crisis." I think that everyone with half a brain knows that it would be economically disasterous to undo it. It certainly plays well in Ohio, Michigan and a few other places to blame trade deals for job losses even though it's not remotely that simple.

I imagine they will try to renegotiate it, however and maybe that's not such a bad idea. Then again, I was under the impression that these deals were constantly being adjusted anyway, so the renegotiation may just be a photo op or they might get a few changes, but I wouldn't expect a paradigm shift.

Posts: 15414 | From: left to right on your radio dial... | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Inca
Member
Member # 675

 - posted      Profile for Inca     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I only caught the beginning. Clinton looked like she wanted to kick Russert in the nads, as I'm sure many of us have wanted to do on occasion, but not because he had the temerity to read what we actually said about NAFTA in the past.

Really, nothing was gained. The entire healthcare section could be summed up as this:

quote:
Clinton: My healthcare plan is better because it calls for everyone to have insurance, while Barack's doesn't.

Obama: I don't believe in forcing a mandate.

Clinton: Your plan has a mandate.

Obama: No it doesn't.

Clinton: Yes it does.

Obama: Nuh-uh.

Clinton: Yah-huh.

I don't know how many times during the healthcare part that either Brian Williams or Russert let one of the two speak, saying "last point," then the other person would talk after they were finished. What's the point of having moderators?

Clinton seemed rather off-putting at parts I saw--Mrs. Inca remarking "I never really hated Hillary before, but I do now."

The low point had to be when Clinton got the first question on trade, and complained about always getting the first question. "I'm happy to answer first, it's just strange I always have to go first," approximating what she said. She kept repeating "I don't mind, I'm happy to answer first," then would complain some more. She then brought up the opening from the past week's SNL as evidence that the media favors Obama.

Posts: 16877 | From: Gobias Industries | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Inca
Member
Member # 675

 - posted      Profile for Inca     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
G-Man, that McCain/Iseman story came out last week, and it might as well be ancient history by now. Rather than taking a hit, the really poor way the NYT article was worded--strongly implying that the two were having an affair, and letting the serious ethical problems of his coziness with all lobbyists go overshadowed--meant that McCain was helped by the article, because conservatives rallied around him and attacked the NYT.
Posts: 16877 | From: Gobias Industries | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ursus arctos
Member
Member # 1452

 - posted      Profile for ursus arctos     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
That last bit was one of the clips that BBC World. She came off terribly.
Posts: 18670 | From: mediolanum | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Antonio Gramsci
Member
Member # 11024

 - posted      Profile for Antonio Gramsci     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I thought NAFTA was unpopular in Canada.
Anything to do with the United States will bring the wingnuts into the streets and cause all "right-thinking" Canadians to tut-tut themselves into an orgy of self-congratulation about our social safety net and mutter about how "we don't want to become like them."

That said, Ontario's entire economy is geared towards exports, our captains of industry are either too stupid or too lazy to look beyond the American export market, and so the market access NAFTA provides is crucial to our economy. Even the tut-tutters sort of get that.

Posts: 1762 | From: the further reaches of sleep deprivation | Registered: Sep 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Reed
Member
Member # 55

 - posted      Profile for Reed     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I totally agree, Inca. That article helped McCain and just further damaged the NYT. Hanna Rosen wrote a nice piece on it on Slate where she said it seemed like the entire article - all the stuff about the S&L scandal and his ties to lobbyists were just window dressing for the sex bit.

If I were writing that story, I'd have just left out any mention of a possible romantic affair A) because the evidence there is slim to none B) it distracts from the real point, which is that McCain appears to be closer to certain lobbying interests than he'd have you believe.

In fact, if this woman was funnelling that old duffer's hog, it would suggest that she was hanging around him a lot for reasons nothing to do with political influence. That mitigates the damage to his credibility a lot, I think. He's built his career on getting lobbying money out of politics. He's never explicitly said, I don't think, that he wasn't getting some on the side. At least, it's never been a big part of his campaign.

Canada may want to diversify their trading partners but I doubt they'll ever be able to reduce their dependance on the US very much. It's a country 10 times their size which they can ship stuff into on trucks and still get home in time for HNIC.

[ 27.02.2008, 15:50: Message edited by: Reed ]

Posts: 15414 | From: left to right on your radio dial... | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Batebe of Toro Foundation
Member
Member # 465

 - posted      Profile for The Batebe of Toro Foundation     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Words fail me.
Hey, Andy, I've an idea.

Let's turn this into another squabble about what happened on the other thread, making that other thread unusable for sensible discussion of US politics. That way, this thread too will become totally unusable. Brilliant!

You, sir, are a veritable genius.

Posts: 17027 | From: your gaff, nicking stuff. | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Inca
Member
Member # 675

 - posted      Profile for Inca     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
If I were writing that story, I'd have just left out any mention of a possible romantic affair A) because the evidence there is slim to none B) it distracts from the real point, which is that McCain appears to be closer to certain lobbying interests than he'd have you believe.
Especially considering that his statements in response--that he never spoke to Iseman's client--were refuted by a deposition he gave in 2000, and by the client himself. But the rest of the media picked up on the affair bit, and the rest of the story was ignored.

Reportedly the Times had as much info as they did for the article last week months ago, and were trying to get more, but ran the story when it was clear that the New Republic and Newsweek were getting ready to publish their own articles. I know the conservatives thought the Times was out to get McCain, but really, they could have run that back when the GOP contest was up for grabs, and I think it would have had a very different effect--Romney and Huckabee likely would have pushed the ethical violations part of the story, and it really could have hurt him. Instead, the Times did him a huge favor.

Posts: 16877 | From: Gobias Industries | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Inca
Member
Member # 675

 - posted      Profile for Inca     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Looking ahead to November, some bad news from the LA Times poll:

quote:
In head-to-head contests, the poll found, McCain leads Clinton by 6 percentage points (46% to 40%) and Obama by 2 points (44% to 42%). Neither lead is commanding given that the survey, conducted Feb. 21-25, has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

The Arizona senator is viewed favorably by 61% of all registered voters, including a plurality of Democrats.

The survey showed that McCain's potential advantages extend even to domestic issues, where he is considered to be most vulnerable. Even though McCain has joked about his lack of expertise on economic issues, voters picked him over Obama, 42% to 34%, as being best able to handle the economy. However, Clinton led McCain on that issue, 43% to 34%.

"I just think he's older, he's more experienced, and he's got the betterment of the country in mind," said Robert Fear, 79, a registered Democrat from Newton, Ill., who said he planned to support McCain in November.


Posts: 16877 | From: Gobias Industries | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Matej
Member
Member # 219

 - posted      Profile for Matej     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
There is a part of me that still gets shocked when I hear people say they would vote for McCain.

I'm sure that my soul will eventually get ripped from me before November though, so it won't last.

Seriously, though, John fucking McCain? What the fuck can he offer anyone but more crap?

Posts: 6506 | From: I hear New Zealand is nice | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Inca
Member
Member # 675

 - posted      Profile for Inca     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
All of a sudden, Clinton wants superdelegates to hold off from pledging their support to a candidate.

I'll give you one guess why that is:

quote:
Now, however, as Obama has gained steadily in the polls, the Clinton campaign has reversed field. Top Clinton aides are pleading with uncommitted super delegates to hold off making any commitments, fearful that any commitments they make would be to back Obama, not Clinton.

A set of talking points emailed to Clinton supporters within organized labor describes the arguments to use on uncommitted super delegates. In the email, the Clinton campaign suggests telling the uncommitted delegates that "it would be unfair and unjust to cut off the nominating process now. There might come a time when the process needs to come to a close, but that time is not now."

In language that could have been lifted from the Obama playbook just a few weeks ago, the email says Clinton backers should make the case to super delegates that: "If House, Senate and DNC members try to end this process now, it would be very damaging to those institutions, the Democratic Party and our chances in November."


Posts: 16877 | From: Gobias Industries | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 24 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ...  22  23  24   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | WSC

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2

    This board has been transferred to www.wsc.co.uk,

    why not join us there