The 2008 presidential field at-a-glance

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by KAPital PHINUst

Uhhh, he already holds a national office. He is a U.S. Representative (who btw secured his re-election to Congress).

I meant executive office. But thanks for clarifying a point that everyone already knows. He's got a nice, cozy, no-opponent-in-the-general-election congressional seat there that he can stay comfortable in. And enjoy.

ETA: I just read your edited/added parts and again, don't assign all your big-word-mumbo-jumbo to me 'cuz you don't know me, and I'd caution you that making decisions based on zealot-driven websites, blogs and I don't know how else the Paulettes communicate, leaflets, maybe?, is the best way to go either. And oo, a movie quote against "the system". That's unique. And effective in "intelligent discourse"! But hey, you do you.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

I meant executive office. But thanks for clarifying a point that everyone already knows. He's got a nice, cozy, no-opponent-in-the-general-election congressional seat there that he can stay comfortable in. And enjoy.

ETA: I just read your edited/added parts and again, don't assign all your big-word-mumbo-jumbo to me 'cuz you don't know me, and I'd caution you that making decisions based on zealot-driven websites, blogs and I don't know how else the Paulettes communicate, leaflets, maybe?, is the best way to go either. And oo, a movie quote against "the system". That's unique. And effective in "intelligent discourse"! But hey, you do you.

Don't they communicate by racist Ron Paul newsletters, according to the press about a month ago?

Perhaps even more funny than Kapital PhiNust's claim that the Republican delegates are all going to abandon McCain is the idea that if they did, they'd go for Ron Paul because despite his inability to win many delegates in the primaries, more people will be interested in voting for Ron Paul in the general election.

It's worth a chuckle to really think it through.

[DSTCHAOS]

The Obama "how rich am I" comparison is lost on me, too. I know that he is doing what other politicians do and that's try to appeal to as many people as you can appeal to. So getting his endorsement from the labor union and some of his initiatives will lead to an attempt to say "I'm not in the top % of this country, I'm closer to the rest of this country than Clinton is."

****

Does Obama have corporate sponsors or not? My friend and I were talking about how all of these endorsements can lead to a conflict of interests. Whose agenda do you really push if you're being funded by corporations AND labor unions? The interest of the corporations directly conflicts with that of the labor unions in most regards. Even when workers and labor unions are having their demands met, it is still in the best interest of corporate profit and capitalism. So that is one thing that some of us question when it comes to politics.

The only reason I'm asking this about Obama specifically is because his supporters basically had a parade when he was endorsed by the labor union.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

The Obama "how rich am I" comparison is lost on me, too. I know that he is doing what other politicians do and that's try to appeal to as many people as you can appeal to. So getting his endorsement from the labor union and some of his initiatives will lead to an attempt to say "I'm not in the top % of this country, I'm closer to the rest of this country than Clinton is."

****

Does Obama have corporate sponsors or not? My friend and I were talking about how all of these endorsements can lead to a conflict of interests. Whose agenda do you really push if you're being funded by corporations AND labor unions? The interest of the corporations directly conflicts with that of the labor unions in most regards. Even when workers and labor unions are having their demands met, it is still in the best interest of corporate profit and capitalism. So that is one thing that some of us question when it comes to politics.

The only reason I'm asking this about Obama specifically is because his supporters basically had a parade when he was endorsed by the labor union.

I thought the Teamsters was a really big deal.....now I am wondering....

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

I thought the Teamsters was a really big deal.....now I am wondering....

Eh--all of this stuff is only as important as we make it.

I wasn't moved either way, except that it made my eyebrow raise. You can't be everything to everybody.

[nittanyalum]

I'm not predicting there won't be ANYthing for critics to feed on once the Clinton tax return is released, but I think Obama's team are mainly reacting to the talking heads last night that said he was getting dinged by the Rezko thing and the staff member/Canadian official dealings and he needed to hammer on the "question" about her releasing her returns to try to deflect some stuff on her. Everything I've read in response to what's been lobbed is that their 2007 return will be released on or around April 15th. Isn't that tax day? Is it unreasonable they don't file/release their return until tax day?

And all of her papers have been given back to the Archives from what I understand and it's up to them to release them.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

I'm not predicting there won't be ANYthing for critics to feed on once the Clinton tax return is released, but I think Obama's team are mainly reacting to the talking heads last night that said he was getting dinged by the Rezko thing and the staff member/Canadian official dealings and he needed to hammer on the "question" about her releasing her returns to try to deflect some stuff on her. Everything I've read in response to what's been lobbed is that their 2007 return will be released on or around April 15th. Isn't that tax day? Is it unreasonable they don't file/release their return until tax day?

And all of her papers have been given back to the Archives from what I understand and it's up to them to release them.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...linton-hiding/

It doesn't appear to be just the 2007 return. It's all their returns since they left the White House.

I don't really believe that it's the archive that won't release her papers. I think it's terms that she set (or Bill set).

http://www.newsweek.com/id/57351

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...linton-hiding/

It doesn't appear to be just the 2007 return. It's all their returns since they left the White House.

Ok, I misspoke. According to the article, they plan to release all of those returns on or about April 15th. Real judgement can come after that happens (or if at that point it doesn't happen).

I don't really believe that it's the archive that won't release her papers. I think it's terms that she set (or Bill set).
http://www.newsweek.com/id/57351

You do realize that article is from October 2007, right?

Let's join each other in 2008. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...022902989.html

Great last line:"So calling on the Clintons to release their papers makes for great campaign theater. But it's theater that has no bearing on reality."

[PeppyGPhiB]

I really don't care how rich or poor any of the candidates are, and whether they had to take out student loans to get their law degrees or not. For that matter, I really don't care too much how they do their taxes, either. All of these things are distractions from the important stuff, and I really think the democrats should shut their mouths and stop bringing up stuff that could haunt the party when it gets to the general election. The Democratic party insiders and strategists really need to have more foresight. If they thought to anticipate what media or the Republicans might say/do later, they wouldn't do some of the stuff they do.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

I really don't care how rich or poor any of the candidates are, and whether they had to take out student loans to get their law degrees or not. For that matter, I really don't care too much how they do their taxes, either. All of these things are distractions from the important stuff, and I really think the democrats should shut their mouths and stop bringing up stuff that could haunt the party when it gets to the general election. The Democratic party insiders and strategists really need to have more foresight. If they thought to anticipate what media or the Republicans might say/do later, they wouldn't do some of the stuff they do.

I think that the financial stuff is actually relevant since there's a perception in the public mind that some folks have been bought or are beholden or just in bed with some pretty distasteful folks financially. The sources of income are worth knowing in my opinion. But I don't hold it against anybody that they are rich.

I agree with what you are saying about it being smarter not to damage each other, but it also may be the case that airing it now makes it seem like old news by the general election. There's just no way to know.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

Ok, I misspoke. According to the article, they plan to release all of those returns on or about April 15th. Real judgement can come after that happens (or if at that point it doesn't happen).

You do realize that article is from October 2007, right?

Let's join each other in 2008. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...022902989.html

Great last line:"So calling on the Clintons to release their papers makes for great campaign theater. But it's theater that has no bearing on reality."

The article I posted is less than five months old. I don't think that much has changed.

The law says that the materials should be available to the public five years after an administration ends. The documents aren't. Perhaps they should have started the vetting process within the five year window, so the documents would be available now.

While you are accepting of a Washington Post's editorial page contributor's take, I'm not. I think the Clintons are happy with the hold-up, or they would make more things available themselves, like the tax returns.

And if they hadn't had a reputation for withholding documents that might be damaging, I think I'd be more accepting of the claims in the article. But they were, and I'm not.

[nittanyalum]

Ron Paul is finally planning to take a powder from the presidential race, though he promises his "revolution" will go on... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk_vVaZxTno

[KAPital PHINUst]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

Ron Paul is finally planning to take a powder from the presidential race, though he promises his "revolution" will go on... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk_vVaZxTno

^^^REFUTED

Grounds: Speculation; no basis in fact.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by KAPital PHINUst

^^^REFUTED

Grounds: Speculation; no basis in fact.

EXCELLENT rebuttal. You're refuting with what information, exactly? The man said in his video that "victory is not available" and "the campaign is winding down." But you feel free to keep the charge going forward, Don Quixote.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by KAPital PHINUst

^^^REFUTED

Grounds: Speculation; no basis in fact.

Spokesman: Ron Paul will end presidential run

CNN) -- A spokesman for Ron Paul's presidential campaign said Friday that the Texas congressman is ending his run for the White House.
"We are acknowledging that Ron will not be the nominee and that we are winding down the campaign," said Jesse Benton, the Paul campaign's communication manager.
Paul hinted the end was near in a video to supporters posted on YouTube on Thursday....
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/...aul/index.html