The video tells a whole lot about this imposter.
LOL Um, blatant partisan attacks ads tell nothing about anything…
If people vote based upon on what some shithead agenda’ist making a video using special interest money says --God help us all!
Your right…but tell me one thing in that video thats isnt true. Omomma’s…shell is cracking…
edited to add: You can tell a lot about a man by the company he keeps.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352862,00.html
Its hard to believe this isnt law in every State??? Way to go Indiana!
I’m an outsider on that matter, but my gut tells me that Obama would be a bad choice for the US and the western world.
I don’t even know why, I never had a particular interest in US presidents, not even when everyone else was ranting about GWB and how he got elected in the first place. Maybe it’s the messianic coating his campaign is trying to give him, we germans are pretty attentively for things like that for obvious reasons.
But something in this guy irritates me to no end.
Just today I read an article in Spiegel(weekly news magazine), which presumed, that Obama will make the race as presidential candidate for the democrats with super delegate votes, because the democrats now cannot anymore afford it to look as if they wouldn’t elect a candidate because he was black, but this move will ultimatly cost them the presidency.
Don’t you have a photo ID card anyway? Here in germany everyone over 16 is required to have one and you usually have to show it at the poll site together with the electoral invitiation, which gets compared to the electoral roll, to get the actual ballot.
I’m surprised there is a way to do it differently, since this way seems somehow obvious to me to prevent a certain type of manipulation.
I’ll be voting for John McCain, although my first choice would have been Mitt Romney, whom I voted for in the Florida Primary.
I dunno. I saw a poll last night with like 73% saying they were tired of the Rev. whateverhisnameis shiite and just want to get on with the election…
His “shell” is only cracking with decided partisans who’ve already made up their mind…
And the whole process of US elections is getting ridiculous. I think everything is over in the UK in like six weeks or something…
Um, even the Supreme Court admitted it would disenfranchise older and poor voters in regards and that there was no real reason for the law since voter fraud has never been an issue. Certainly not one any more prevalent then possible insecurities of Diebold digital voting machines, which have been routinely shown to be easily hacked. Then again, the Supreme Court seems to like to decide elections, even against the popular vote…
But I agree that we should have a national ID incorporated with the driver’s license or something.
AP Poll: Clinton leads McCain by 9 points
By LIZ SIDOTI – 9 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — Hillary Rodham Clinton now leads John McCain by 9 points in a head-to-head presidential matchup, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll that bolsters her argument that she is more electable than Democratic rival Barack Obama. Obama and Republican McCain are running about even.
The survey released Monday gives the New York senator and former first lady a fresh talking point as she works to raise much-needed campaign cash and persuade pivotal undecided superdelegates to side with her in the drawn-out Democratic primary fight.
Helped by independents, young people and seniors, Clinton gained ground this month in a hypothetical match with Sen. McCain, the GOP nominee-in-waiting. She now leads McCain, 50 percent to 41 percent, while Obama remains virtually tied with McCain, 46 percent to 44 percent.
Both Democrats were roughly even with McCain in the previous poll about three weeks ago.
Since then, Clinton won the Pennsylvania primary, raising questions anew about whether Obama can attract broad swaths of voters needed to triumph in such big states come the fall when the Democratic nominee will go up against McCain. At the same time, Obama was thrown on the defensive by his comment that residents of small-town America were bitter. The Illinois senator also continued to deal with the controversial remarks of his longtime Chicago pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
“I don’t think there’s any question that over the last three weeks her stature has improved,” said Harrison Hickman, a Democratic pollster unaligned in the primary. He attributed Clinton’s gains to people moving from the “infatuation stage” of choosing the candidate they like the most to a “decision-making stage” where they determine who would make the best president.
Added Steve Lombardo, a GOP pollster: “This just reinforces the sentiment that a lot of Republican strategists are having right now — that Clinton might actually be the more formidable fall candidate for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is that Obama can’t seem to get his footing back.”
The AP-Ipsos poll found Clinton and Obama about even in the race for the Democratic nomination. Underscoring deep divisions within the Democratic Party — and a potentially negative longer-term impact — 30 percent of Clinton supporters and 21 percent of Obama supporters said they would vote for McCain in November if their preferred candidate didn’t win the nomination.
Obama leads Clinton in pledged delegates, but she has the advantage among superdelegates with about a third yet to make up their minds.
Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean said Monday that one of the two must drop out of the race after the primary season wraps up in June so Democrats can unite before the late-summer convention and the fall campaign.
He also urged undecided superdelegates — members of the Democratic National Committee as well as Democratic governors and members of Congress — to side with either Clinton or Obama before the August convention so the party can come together to take on McCain. The Arizona senator clinched the GOP nomination last month and has been campaigning freely since.
Also on Monday, the head of the Republicans’ House campaign committee said the party would rather face Obama in November because the GOP believes Clinton would be more of a threat to McCain among moderate voters.
Said Tom Cole, a congressman from Oklahoma: Obama “is by any definition very liberal, to the left of Hillary Clinton, in a center-right country. That is very, very helpful to us.”
Nearly half the people in the AP-Ipsos poll said the protracted Democratic primary will hurt their party’s chances in November; more Obama supporters than Clinton backers said they had that fear.
Overall, people said they trusted Clinton and Obama about the same to handle Iraq and the economy; McCain got similar ratings on Iraq but trailed both Democrats on the economy. And while roughly the same percentage of people said they trusted both Democrats to understand their problems, fewer trusted McCain.
When pitted against McCain, Clinton now wins among independents, 50 percent to 34 percent, when just a few weeks ago she ran about even with him with this crucial group of voters. Clinton also now does better among independents than Obama does in a matchup with McCain.
Clinton has a newfound edge among seniors, too, 51 percent to 39 percent; McCain had previously had the advantage. And, Clinton has improved her margin over McCain among people under age 30; two-thirds of them now side with her. McCain leads Obama among seniors, while Obama leads McCain among those under 30 but by a smaller margin than Clinton does.
She also now leads among Catholics, always an important swing voting group in a general election, and improved her standing in the South as well as in cities and among families making under $25,000 a year. But she lost ground among families making between $50,000 and $100,000; they narrowly support McCain.
The poll, taken April 23-27, questioned 1,001 adults nationally, with a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points. Included were interviews with 457 Democratic voters and people leaning Democratic, with a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4.6 points, and 346 Republicans or GOP-leaning voters, with a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 5.3 points.
AP Director of Surveys Trevor Tompson and AP News Survey Specialist Dennis Junius contributed to this report.
That sums up a common view here, among people who can even be bothered with the ridiculous amount of local press coverage of what is just a ridiculously complicated and drawn out party pre-selection process for someone to run for prez. Here, it takes place behind closed doors, within the parties as it should. In a couple of weeks. With almost no press coverage and a result at the end. Thanks be to god for that!
Obama comes across as a lightweight, white coffee, not-black, Harvard man supposedly understanding the blacks in the ghettos and projects, spin doctor full of pretend black shit with no street cred for blacks, whites, hispanics, or anyone else. Sounds almost like the perfect candidate. :rolleyes:
Hillary is full of shit too, like every politician, but her shit is less shitful than Obama’s.
Like McCain has to worry. America ain’t ready for woman or a vaguely black prez yet, especially when it has a bloke who served his nation better and much harder in uniform (or for five starving years in a rat infested North Vietnamese shit hole) than anyone since 1945, including JFK and Dad Bush. That doesn’t qualify him for office, but to the extent that JFK and Dad Bush were elected on their military records and Dubya wasn’t (owing to his military records conveniently going missing at the critical moment :rolleyes:), he has the runs on the board.
But none of that really matters, because Dubya is clearly an idiot puppet as will be whoever is the next prez of whichever interests bankroll and elect him, which interests he or she will serve.
So it doesn’t matter who the puppet is, because they’ll be a puppet muppet.
My son who is 18 yrs old has to show I.D. to go see a R rated movie, hell…I had to show my I.D. at the Savon store last week when my wife’s allergies were kicking up and I had to buy some over the counter Claritian. Try doing anything else in this country where you don’t have to produce an id that is as important as voting. I cant see how requiring someone to have an I.D. is a burden on them or makes them a " Victim".
Voter fraud is a tough issue, we know its happening but its hard to prove. There were no documented cases of “widespread fraud” because there was no way to document it. I remember the Dornan / Sanchez race here in California a few years ago, illegal’s from Mexico were voting in that race. She won by something like 960 votes. There’s still no mechanism to revoke voter registrations upon the death of a voter. Conceivably, a person could keep on requesting absentee ballots by mail for a dead person indefinitely. The system is full of holes. Still, we monitor other countries elections through the UN by applying higher standards of proof than we require at home. Bit hypocritical, isn’t it?
I just don’t understand how having an I.D. would be a burden on the poor or elderly.
I support I.D’s to vote
The “Claritan” law is rather stupid I think (to prevent meph dealers from setting up labs in the US --now they just do it in Mexico or Canada). The whole silly restrictions are a bit of a joke. But that’s another issue.
People have “voter registration cards” and are in a log book of residents/registered voters; at least where I live…
And we know people often vote outside their listed residential areas (i.e. Ann Coulter, the very columnist calling out Dems for potential voting irregularities), which is voter fraud. But as long as they have a picture ID, the it’s okay now…
And people living in rural areas with little or no access to DMVs, etc., will now effectively be nonpersons. So they may well have situations of elderly, handicapped voters that have lived and voted in areas for years now being turned away simply, even though the poll workers have known them all their lives.
But actually, this is a very disingenuous ploy by (mostly, but certainly not always Republicans), because what we could do is make it very easy on everyone and just automatically register to vote at the DMV. Something that has routinely been frustrated. This is yet another hurtle to participatory democracy…
Voter fraud is a tough issue, we know its happening but its hard to prove. There were no documented cases of “widespread fraud” because there was no way to document it.
Absolutely false. There have been no widespread voter fraud cases, and any widespread (on the lever to effect an national election) would quickly be hounded out by interest groups with ease. There simply is little payoff in a relative few voters impersonating other people. More than a few dozen such incidents will be detected and send up red flags…
I remember the Dornan / Sanchez race here in California a few years ago, illegal’s from Mexico were voting in that race. She won by something like 960 votes. There’s still no mechanism to revoke voter registrations upon the death of a voter.
How exactly will voter ID solve any of this? If dead people are “voting,” then certianly no one cast the vote and some form of manipulation took place beyond the polling stations…
Secondly, you raise a valid point regarding illegals voting, but even in that race, we’re not sure that what turned out to be dozens, not thousands, of illegal votes even mattered in the race:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D03E5DD133FF935A25751C0A961958260
Conceivably, a person could keep on requesting absentee ballots by mail for a dead person indefinitely. The system is full of holes. Still, we monitor other countries elections through the UN by applying higher standards of proof than we require at home. Bit hypocritical, isn’t it?
I absolutely agree with the last statement. But the knife cuts both ways. There are allegations that certain elections officials in Florida (i.e. Katherine Harris, who has since been largely exsposed and a mentally ill dipshit that made patently absurd statements during her embarrassing, fail congressional campaign) may have purged voter rolls of people that they thought would go against their candidates using the most frivolous of excuses…
Oh, and then there is DIEbold. The machine that can easily be hacked. I think we can make the argument that this is far more an …
I just don’t understand how having an I.D. would be a burden on the poor or elderly.
I support I.D’s to vote
Because there are people who cannot get a picture ID very easily, so there should be provisions as such…
The argument against it is here at Slate.com. Basically, it is rectifying a problem that doesn’t exist in order to purge the rolls of people that may presumably vote for candidates that champion underclass…
[i]Slate.com:
First and foremost, Indiana’s law is a “solution” to a problem that doesn’t exist. The voting fraud it purports to address is illusory. And the means it employs needlessly make it far more difficult for some citizens—especially those who are low-income, elderly, or lack easy access to transportation—to vote.
The basic legal standard for assessing a voting restriction of this sort is whether the need for the restriction is sufficiently weighty to justify the burden on legitimate voters. Photo-ID supporters argue that the requirement is necessary to prevent voter fraud, and that it imposes a negligible burden because legitimate voters invariably possess a government-issued photo ID. Both claims are wrong: A photo-ID requirement, in fact, is essentially of no benefit in preventing voter fraud, and it disenfranchises scores of legitimate voters.
There is no dispute that Indiana’s photo-ID requirement addresses one, and only one, species of fraud—so-called “in-person impersonation fraud,” which would occur if an ineligible voter were to come to the polls and attempt to cast a ballot by falsely claiming the identity of an eligible voter. In the entire history of Indiana, the total number of reported instances of this kind of fraud is zero. Nor is there reliable evidence that in-person impersonation fraud has occurred anywhere else in the country.[/i]
Mike, you raise some great points and some real issues, but I think that this law is far more cynical then it sounds. And the potentialities of fraud via electronic voting are far more of a danger…
Kind of moot though, if Obama wins the Democrat nomination as he is likely to do.
I don’t put much stock in polls this early in the game. Most of the time the momentum swings back and forth like a pendulum. What counts is who has the lead, momentum, and most voters out on election day.
More polling organizations for future reference:
Gallup Poll
http://www.gallup.com/
Rasmussen Reports
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/
Rasmussen Polls
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/older_content/home/most_recent_articles/most_recent_articles
Zogby International
http://www.zogby.com
I agree George that nothing can be decided from polls, other than I think this is going to be a very close election and an interesting one to watch. But for a while, I think McCain had a slight advantage statistically speaking, now it seems to have swung the other way.
We’ll see…
My wife and I were talking about that just after he announced. Some extremest or KKK member would think it would make him part of history to do it. There are always those around. But, they would have to keep him in solitary to keep him from being killed in prison.
“Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean said Monday that one of the two must drop out of the race after the primary season wraps up in June so Democrats can unite before the late-summer convention and the fall campaign.”
To me, such statements are idiotic. For many decades, the nominations were never settled until after the Conventions. Then the real campaign began between the candidates. To me much of the real interest in the campaigns came from both conventions themselves. Speeches from those nominated, especially after TV began broadcasting them in the early years.
Those making such statements, to me indicates they want the candidate who happens to be leading now, as their candidate. They want to cut off debates, and voting for the other candidate, so the person they want to win is assured.
Personally, I want everyone to have every opportunity to say whatever they have to say. Wish the contest between the Republicans also had continued, we would have had more debates, learned a lot more about each candidate.
Correct, and when a man says he has chosen to support a Pastor for 20 years, and has not been influenced by his opinions, he I believe is lying.
When he says no one would quit going to a church because a Pastor says such things, it shows he is ignorant. Ive left many a church, looking for one where I agreed with all the Pastor said, because of things that were not near as controversial.
Until he said the these and other things, we had intended to vote for him.
If he wins the nomination, we will vote for McCain…
The reason I finally chose the Salvation Army, was because I could agree with what they were, what they did, what they said and they way they spent money donated. Building hospitals, drug rehab units, community centers for children, etc… instead of multi-million dollar homes for the Pastor. In the S.A. over 94 cents of every dollar goes to help people.
Now, THAT would be a President. At least Colbert would keep us laughing.
I think he’s right. I’m not a big fan of how long these elections take --forever! They cost more an more money which puts politicians more and more into the pockets of various donors and special interest groups…