Comments for en-gb 30 Sun 13 Jul 2014 07:35:21 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at dennisjunior1 What is about the title...Ohio is part of the United States of America...It does matter that the people in that state get an opportunity to vote. Mon 16 Jun 2008 01:50:54 GMT+1 Grizzlyinohio As a native Montanan, I need to step up to point out the importance of the Montana vote. The state is 95 percent white and the largest minority are native American tribes. The positive vote of overwhelmingly white populations in Oregon, Maine, Iowa, and Montana for Obama, demonstrate, I believe, that primarily only white folks in states connected to the old confederacy will have the reluctance to vote for Obama. The Dems need to write off the south and make certain they sweep the midwest and take Colorado and New Mexico. Sat 14 Jun 2008 14:57:40 GMT+1 roadwaysurfer Hello from Ohio. I have lived here all my life. Let me tell you a little about Ohio that may make things clear, especially for anyone outside the United States. Just like in any particular area, people are of a similar mind set. Ohioans are not all that similar to, say, Californians. But we are very similar to people in Kentucky and Pennsylvania. When you get a candidate from "outside the box" as Obama, you are going to see strong support for that candidate from a certain group of people. I think in this case, urbanites. They tend to be more liberal. But, out in the country, were the work is much harder physically and you are "make-it-or-break it" at the whim of the sun, rain, soil conditions, etc., people are much more conservative--regardless of their race, color, creed, etc. They have a better appreciation of the value of a dollar and their memory is not so addled so as not to recall how hard it was to come by. And the folks in the country outnumber the folks in any of the big cities. Sure, it's fine and dandy to rally round a new face and then move on to the next big thing--which is what city people tend to do. But when you wake up at dawn, walk through muck and manure, you tend to be a little more skeptical of the next big thing. For the record, I have lived most of my life in the city, but I have been in the country long enough to learn "when in Rome...." Fri 13 Jun 2008 19:05:54 GMT+1 TheFeldkircher Ah Ohio,I had the good fortune to be on a working holiday for 9 months just north of Cincinnati a few years ago, had a great time met some great people, I will always have a soft spot for Ohio.As for the state and its political leanings, I will leave that to others to ponder.Ah Ohio,Happy days.... Thu 12 Jun 2008 18:31:30 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart Ms Marbles,"What happened to Ohio?"Who needs Ohio?;-)ed Thu 12 Jun 2008 16:54:25 GMT+1 gunsandreligion I'm not sure why a link to a clip from"Dr. Strangelove" would cause a postto this blog to be referred to the moderators,but here is the first half of my post:McCain is doing everything he can to losemy vote, here is the latest: Thu 12 Jun 2008 16:43:06 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart Feldkircher,It seems we mustn't greet folks in German, because the Mods (who are as Gods) are afraid we might pass secret codes and endanger domestic security.Enjoy the beautiful Tyrol!From a hard and prickly Igel Thu 12 Jun 2008 16:33:17 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart Will the Iraqi Government Destroy Half of McCain's Campaign?John McCain and George W. Bush argue that maintaining high levels of U.S. troops in Iraq is essential for the security of Iraq, the region, the world, and, of course, the Untied States. But that does not seem to be the position of Baghdad....In recent days, there has been a spate of news reports on the troubled negotiations between the Bush administration and the Iraqi government concerning the under-construction agreement that will govern the presence of U.S. troops and military bases in Iraq. The Washington Post reports on the front page: Top Iraqi officials are calling for a radical reduction of the U.S. military's role here after the U.N. mandate authorizing its presence expires at the end of this year. Encouraged by recent Iraqi military successes, government officials have said that the United States should agree to confine American troops to military bases unless the Iraqis ask for their assistance, with some saying Iraq might be better off without them.... "The Americans are making demands that would lead to the colonization of Iraq," said Sami al-Askari, a senior Shiite politician on parliament's foreign relations committee who is close to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki "If we can't reach a fair agreement, many people think we should say, 'Goodbye, U.S. troops. We don't need you here anymore.'"Well, well, well! How's that for gratitude? We come in and rid them of a nasty dictator, and in the process just happen to destroy a huge amount of property, but we offer them the golden opportunity to pay for the reconstruction by our corporations with the profits we generously allow them from the forced sale of their national assets through our corporations.I mean, it's only natural that we should want to demonstrate our continuing generosity by adding them to the hundreds of nations we allow to host our permanent military bases.Downright ungrateful, I say!;-)ed Thu 12 Jun 2008 16:19:24 GMT+1 gunsandreligion I have to say, as an undecided voter, that both candidates are doing their best to drive me away, and the conventions haven't even been held yet. Here is McCain's latest attempt: Which makes me think that a McCain presidency could end like this: [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator] Thu 12 Jun 2008 15:45:14 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart Feldkircher,On consulting my German dictionary, it appears I might have been mistaken, and it may have more to do with a churches than cherries.Ein Feldkirch might be a rural church or ein Kirchfeld might be the graveyard? You have beautiful surroundings, in the Tyrol, in any case.Anyway, as a hart igel, I would expect to be a hard and prickly personality, or perhaps to have the heart of a hedgehog....I prefer to consider myself Eagle Hearted. ;-)im Frieden, Auf Wiedersehen, ed Thu 12 Jun 2008 15:19:35 GMT+1 allmymarbles What happened to Ohio? Thu 12 Jun 2008 15:17:10 GMT+1 TheFeldkircher #98No offence taken, I took my name from the Town I live in, Feldkirch - Austria.Which I believe once was a field of cherries, sorry missed the intended joke.It's been a long day, week, month, al Thu 12 Jun 2008 14:17:10 GMT+1 jacksforge True. being politics needs to be done ,unfortunately.What do they want him to lose so Mad Man Mc Cained gets in.or is he reminding everyone that bad people do change.:) that enemy nations can return to the fold Thu 12 Jun 2008 13:44:34 GMT+1 jacksforge See old gaddafi has made a speech. some of which may be true. but then his angle is weird after all he is the new darling of the oil companies now they can get all his oil. Thu 12 Jun 2008 13:41:37 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart "Who or What is Cherryfielder?"A poor attempt at a pun on your name.Apologies ;-( Thu 12 Jun 2008 13:41:02 GMT+1 jacksforge feld =fieldkircher = cherry:) german i think maybe dutch Thu 12 Jun 2008 13:39:41 GMT+1 jacksforge All this talk of Obama choosing a Veep, but hey McCain could pull a fast one and put Clinton on his ticket...Wadda say about that...i say "What i thought she was already":) Thu 12 Jun 2008 13:37:45 GMT+1 majesticjerry777 DO NOT BE DECEIVED, THIS IS A PROPAGANDA BY THE REPUBLICANS! THEY ARE POSTING MESSAGES PRETENDING TO BE HRC SUPPORTERS. THEIR AIM IS TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE THERE IS A TRUE DIVISION IN THE DNC.IF ALL MESSAGES REPRESENTS NATIONAL OPINION, THEN, WHY IS OBAMA AHEAD IN THE OPINION POLLS? WHY IS McSAME CAMPAIGNING AS THE UNDERDOG?!.GOP CONTINUE DECEIVING YOURSELVES. THE RESULTS WILL TELL THE TRUE STORY.DNC HAS GOTTEN OVER HRC AND THE PARTY IS BIGGER THAN ONE PERSON. I BELIEVE SHE WAS A VERY GOOD CANDIDATE, THE RESULTS SHOW SHE WAS NOT GOOD ENOUGH. SUPER DELEGATES ARE TRUSTEES AND CAN CHOOSE WHO THEY BELIEVE IS BEST, THIS TIME THEY CHOSE CHANGE.ALL INDICATIONS SHOW OBAMA IS THE BETTER CANDIDATE . IF HE WERE WHITE HE WOULD HAVE AT LEAST A 20 POINT LEAD.I AM CAUCASIAN AND BELIEVE THE TIME HAS COME FOR CHANGE. I AM NOT SILLY AND EASILY DECEIVED, I HAVE A PHD AND AT LEAST AN AVERAGE IQ.I ASK ALL MY WHITE COMPATRIOTS TO PUT PREJUDICE ASIDE, YOU CAN BE PREJUDICED WITHOUT BEING RACIST, IT IS SOMETIMES UNCONSCIOUS. SIT DOWN, TAKE A DEEP BREATH AND ASK THE QUESTION, WILL I REACT THE SAME WAY TO OBAMA IF HE WERE WHITE? HE IS HALF WHITE , ISN’T HE?THINK! GOD BLESS AMERICA. Thu 12 Jun 2008 13:36:51 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart Gagged in USA?A BBC investigation estimates that around $23bn (£11.75bn) may have been lost, stolen or just not properly accounted for in Iraq....The BBC's Panorama programme has used US and Iraqi government sources to research how much some private contractors have profited from the conflict and rebuilding....A US gagging order is preventing discussion of the allegations. ...The order applies to 70 court cases against some of the top US companies....While President George W Bush remains in the White House, it is unlikely the gagging orders will be lifted....To date, no major US contractor faces trial for fraud or mismanagement in Iraq. For our American friends who don't seem to enjoy as free a press as some would have us believe. Follow the linkThe cost of the stupid war in IraqAnd what we might do with 720 million a dayBetter than contributing to Cheney's retirement hidey-hole?Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peaceed Thu 12 Jun 2008 13:35:40 GMT+1 TheFeldkircher #92Who or What is Cherryfielder? Thu 12 Jun 2008 13:21:22 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart Cherryfielder,All of the above. Well, not a journo, and not looking for work - definitely a researcher of comprehensive and minimally useful but possibly amusing facts. Apparent nightshift timing due to GMT residence. Spare time due to triple freedom (mortgage paid, kids grown, ancestors buried).Better than amusing myself with self abuse, eh?;-)ed Thu 12 Jun 2008 13:01:38 GMT+1 TheFeldkircher #90No....Judging by your post count, your either an out of work journo looking for a job, or a reasearcher of comprehensive but useless facts...or.... your on the nightshift and keeping yourself entertained, as well as us... Thu 12 Jun 2008 12:46:10 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart The Lady VanishesAfter a year and a half directly in the spotlight, where has Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton gone?Does anybody care?;-)ed Thu 12 Jun 2008 12:21:50 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart Geezers Unite!My hair is gray, my bones are brittle, my skin is leather, my eyes are dim, my liver is pickled, my wrists are carpal tunneled, my libido is shot, my lips are botoxed, my toes are corned, my memory is fading, my nose is sprouting weeds,.....But I still know what a fist-bump means!xxedDon't look down! Thu 12 Jun 2008 12:11:33 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart Further to my last post (#87), if anyone is interested in a detailed examination of the tax proposals of the two "main" candidates, follow this link, to the Tax Policy Center, where you can find a 37 page pdf document from which the data in #87 is extracted.zzzzzzzzzed Thu 12 Jun 2008 11:30:28 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart FYIBREAKING DOWN THE NUMBERSHere's how the average tax bill could change in 2009 if either John McCain's or Barack Obama's tax proposals were fully in place. MCCAIN OBAMAIncome Avg. tax bill Avg. tax billOver $2.9M -$269,364 +$701,885$603K and up -$45,361 +$115,974$227K-$603K -$7,871 +$12$161K-$227K -$4,380 -$2,789$112K-$161K -$2,614 -$2,204$66K-$112K -$1,009 -$1,290$38K-$66K -$319 -$1,042$19K-$38K -$113 -$892Under $19K -$19 -$567Source:The Tax Policy CenterFollow the link for the full article.xxed Thu 12 Jun 2008 10:50:39 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart Only two Pinoccios!!The claim that Obama will "enact" the largest tax increase since World War II is also overblown. The Bush tax cuts will expire automatically at the end of 2010, so it is hardly a question of "enacting" a new tax increase. According to Obama's new economics adviser, Jason Furman, the revenues raised from letting the tax cuts expire will be returned to middle and low-income tax payers in the form of tax credits to pay for health insurance, so the overall effect will be revenue neutralTwo Pinoccios!xxed Thu 12 Jun 2008 10:39:28 GMT+1 TheFeldkircher All this talk of Obama choosing a Veep, but hey McCain could pull a fast one and put Clinton on his ticket...Wadda say about that... Thu 12 Jun 2008 10:30:09 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart Faulty memory?"We understood that he [McCain] did not speak directly with him [Paxson]. Now it appears he did speak to him. What is the difference?" Bennett said. "McCain has never denied that Paxson asked for assistance from his office. It doesn't seem relevant whether the request got to him through Paxson or the staff. His letters to the FCC concerning the matter urged the commission to make up its mind. He did not ask the FCC to approve or deny the application. It's not that big a deal."...The Paxson deal, coming as McCain made his first run for the presidency, has posed a persistent problem for the senator. The deal raised embarrassing questions about his dealings with lobbyists at a time when he had assumed the role of an ethics champion and opponent of the influence of lobbyists.Yeah! Right!xxed Thu 12 Jun 2008 10:29:30 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart Who needs Iowa?He had been scheduled to appear in Cedar Rapids today, but stayed away because local news crews there are busy covering the flooding and his campaign did not want to ask government agencies to divert resources for a candidate visit. A sense of priority.Salaam, etc.ed Thu 12 Jun 2008 10:23:03 GMT+1 peterm99 re: #81 powermeerkatI definitely agree with the implications of your post (and the Repubs, in this instance).Given the nearly constant controversy and suggestions and/or perceptions of less than "squeaky clean" behavior during the entire Clinton administration*, I would think that all but the most fervent Clinton supporters would give some thought to excluding everyone that ever worked for the Clintons in a medium to high level position from holding any position of responsibility/visibility in the Obama campaign.And, not just to pick on the Clintons, I would think that the Obama campaign would try very hard to avoid everyone that has been a fixture in Washington, independent of any particular previous administration, unless they had been most thoroughly vetted.First of all, and most important, this surely does nothing to create or enhance Obama's image as having good judgement in the selection of advisors/appointees; secondly, this is certainly inconsistent with the "change" image he's trying to promote.*Before anyone jumps in to accuse me of slamming the Clintons, I'm referring to perceptions/impressions only, since only a few of the allegations of "sleaze" actually resulted in convictions. Thu 12 Jun 2008 09:40:10 GMT+1 powermeerkat "The Republican Party broadened its attacks on Obama in the wake of Johnson's dismissal."If Barack Obama is concerned his campaign's ties to special interests are distracting from his VP search and message, why is Eric Holder still on his search committee?" party spokesman Alex Conant asked."Obama's hypocritical attacks show he can't stand up to his own standard -- and that he just isn't ready to make change."The Republican Party accuses Holder of being a key player in the controversial pardon of fugitive financier Marc Rich by President Clinton in the final days of his presidency. "Oh those nasty Republicans!Don't they understand that Eric Holder is also for change and that's why he to - I'm sure - has changed his position?Just like sen. Obama regarding JJ?Or re unconditional meeting with Ahmablahblah after meeting with AIPAC lobbyists?NOAM CHOMSKY FOR PRESIDENT![at least he doesn't change his views] Thu 12 Jun 2008 07:38:39 GMT+1 Justianus re #76Thank for that, David!I had a look at the site; it's worth a peek.I'll admit to being firmly in the "things are rarely black and white" camp when it comes to many of the issues addressed by the ad. And, perhaps ironically, the ad itself made me realise that.For example, hybrid cars really do suck :) But then there's this. Still not great, but we're getting there. Thu 12 Jun 2008 06:41:01 GMT+1 Grrrlie This post has been Removed Thu 12 Jun 2008 04:30:14 GMT+1 peterm99 re: #75 and #76 Ed Iglehart and David CunardWhile Ed's reference is entertaining, Dave's point is certainly valid.The referenced video is an outstanding illustration for our foreign friends on this site of what elections for a large majority of American voters amounts to.Essentially, issues of all kinds are wrapped up in extremely short sound bites that are catchy, easily retained and repeated, but are completely devoid of any actual thought, analysis, nuance, and, often, veracity.Now imagine lots of 30 second TV ads, each containing one or two of these snippets, followed with a "vote for xxx for president", cycled and repeated ad nauseam and increasing in frequency until the election. Candidates' speeches, policy positions, debates, etc. are really just a sideshow, and, in the overall picture, largely meaningless; ads such as these are what drive the voting decisions of most of the electorate.Churchill's statement "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." has never been truer than when applied to American elections. Thu 12 Jun 2008 03:32:40 GMT+1 SirRex This post has been Removed Thu 12 Jun 2008 03:09:25 GMT+1 David Cunard #75 Ed - You and others make like to go directly to the web site of 'I'm Voting Republican' which has a larger image and more details about the content; clicking on the button "More About This Movie" will be of interest as it gives the reasoning behind some of the statements, some of which may not be obvious from what the characters (not real people!) say. I'm not sure that I agree with the Wal-Mart issue since the company does make very affordable goods available to the more economically challenged, and that has to be good, to some extent balancing out the rest. At least it doesn't gouge its customers as the high-end brand and stores do. The issue is not quite so easily defined as the clip suggests. Thu 12 Jun 2008 02:23:01 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart I've changed my mind! I'm voting Republican!;-)ed Thu 12 Jun 2008 00:12:54 GMT+1 David Cunard #71 and 73 - I'm not going to be drawn into another debate about the merits and faults of either candidate for the Democratic Nominee. You seem to have the inside track on who likes what, so you tell me - I don't know any famous politicians as you appear to do. As for the party pragmatists, they are one less, something the McCain campaign must be relishing - and it's only four days since Mrs Clinton suspended her campaign! Don't underestimate "a bunch of blue-haired old ladies" because they may well make or break success for the Democratic Party. Wed 11 Jun 2008 23:59:42 GMT+1 allmymarbles #69, David Cunard.Question: Why did McCain want Clinton to be the democratic nominee? Answer: She was more vulnerable than Obama. Wed 11 Jun 2008 23:40:14 GMT+1 Scott_From_Columbus As an Ohioan, let me lay out what I think will happen. Obama will sweep all the big metro areas except Cincinnati as well as the industrial belt that sweeps between Cleveland and Pittsburgh. McCain will take most of the southern part of the state (roughly from I-70 south. Fortunately for Obama, there is only one really populated area in that whole area, Cincinnati. I also suspect McCain could do well in that weird realm between Cleveland and Toledo, where they can't seem to decide if their blue-collar democrats or hillbilly republicans. That area is kind of a tossup too. Overall I'm fairly confident that Obama will pull it off, but it's McCain's to win.Strickland did pull off a win for Clinton in the primary, but that same machinery will now be working for Obama.I wouldn't bet the farm on it, but my money is on Obama. Wed 11 Jun 2008 22:53:08 GMT+1 allmymarbles #69, David Cunard. Because of the Clintons' background, were Hillary the VP candidate, the republicans would fall on her like a pack of wolves (expecially once Bill's finances were disclosed). Obama did not do that because she was fellow democrat and McCain did not do that because he was saving his ammunition for when she was the nominee. It doesn't matter how many voters favor her if it means the democrats would lose the election. As I said, it is the pragmatists who will make the decision, not a bunch of blue-haired old ladies. Wed 11 Jun 2008 22:16:43 GMT+1 David Cunard Unfortunately the vetting process is already at risk, since it is reported that Jim Johnson, who Mr Obama chose to be part of his team, is stepping down. Not an auspicious start! Wed 11 Jun 2008 20:41:51 GMT+1 David Cunard #63 allmymarbles "It is not a question of who the voting public wants for VP." I know that only too well - would that public have chosen Spiro Agnew or Dan Quayle? The only "vetting" that is done is by the party itself, not subject to cross examination or producing information under the threat of subpoena. In the present situation, one of the "vetters" is not exactly pure as Mr Obama might have liked.Since I don't have a direct line to her, I have no idea if Mrs Clinton "wants it". To ascribe decisions made by her without empirical knowledge seems, at the very least, premature, if not foolhardy. Mr Obama and his team are duty bound to take the wishes of over 17 million into account - every vote will count in what could very well be a close race rather then the landslide some are predicting. Wed 11 Jun 2008 20:34:14 GMT+1 gunsandreligion #67: The real issue is Adam Smith's laissez-faire capitalism vs. some kind ofindustrial policy.I would submit that while the Republicansprofess support for the former, they reallyare supporting the latter, albeit very poorly.The industries that they are subsidizing aredefence (primarily aerospace) and finance,pointing us in the direction of a super-Switzerland with a big Navy and Air Force.While it could be said that those are goodniches for North America in the globaleconomy, there are others that are justas essential, such as green energy technologiesand advances in the life sciences (becausewe have an ageing population and needto make our health care system moreefficient.) Whether the Democrats could actuallydo this, or just screw everything up withpork-barrel politics remains to be seen. Wed 11 Jun 2008 19:24:58 GMT+1 turningblueandgrey 43, 47, 59, 61, etc - glad to see more consideration for the practical centrist Eisenhower. While he might have regretted Warren on the Supreme Court (some have said so here?) he followed the rule-of-law. Eisenhower acted swiftly and decisively upon the Brown vs. Board of Education decision by sending enough Airborne troops to Little Rock to enforce the Federal ruling when the Arkansas governor balked at integration. A small step to some perhaps, but telling about Ike and significant for the country. 64 - the big change in our economy since Ike's / Kennedy's time is the erosion of production , the rise of service and the emergence of overseas outsourcing. Does that fundamentally change old adages about low business taxes always being good (McCain's message last week)?Should we be neutral about 'incentivizing' services - which are local transfers of money, more cautious about any new incentives for import retailers - who build up trade deficit by overseas transfer of money, but aggressive about creating incentives for domestic production and design? Wed 11 Jun 2008 19:03:53 GMT+1 Gary_A_Hill gunsandreligion (#64), sure I've noticed. Labor day in the U.S., despite its history, nowadays marks the end of summer and the approach of serious business, like school, elections, and postseason baseball. Wed 11 Jun 2008 18:52:11 GMT+1 LesParke Re: 55You're using an outdated poll (taken while Hillary was still in the race). The latest Rasmussen poll of Michigan shows Obama in the lead, 45-42. Wed 11 Jun 2008 18:35:33 GMT+1 gunsandreligion SlashDashUnderscore, Gary_A_Hill,I don't know if you folks noticed, butwe don't have any real labour unions left.The ones that still exist are probablyoutsourcing the collection of their duesto a call center in India.This could wind up being good or badin the long run. We could wind up becomingeither a "super Switzerland" or a "mega Haiti."Personally, I'd prefer to live in a quasiSwitzerland, because at least they stillmake those great cough drops. If thepowers that be turn us into a Haiti, thenour main export will be boatloads of peopletrying to leave, and the Canadians hadbetter be prepared to put up a reallylong fence along the border if that happens. Wed 11 Jun 2008 18:26:20 GMT+1 allmymarbles #53, David Cunard. It is not a question of who the voting public wants for VP. It is the party pragmatists who decide, and what concerns them most is winning in November. Clinton is too vulnerable to attack and, in any case, she does not want the spot. Should she be considered for it she would be vetted, as would Bill. That means full disclosure of their sources of income, something the Clintons would avoid at all costs. Wed 11 Jun 2008 18:06:44 GMT+1 SirRex #59 saintlymarkGood points about Bayh and Rendell, both of whom were, and remain, strong Clinton supporters/endorsers. Either would have been a very strong VP for Clinton.Is someone starting to scratch their head and ask what happened ?Bamboozled , those Elephants are clever !Still a Dem victory is possible if they get dirty. Wed 11 Jun 2008 17:45:04 GMT+1 Gary_A_Hill saintlymark (#59), what Eisenhower did for integration was to send in federal marshalls to enforce orders of the federal courts. That was a significant act for the time. Wed 11 Jun 2008 17:42:12 GMT+1 Gary_A_Hill SirRex (#57), thanks for the compliment, but actually I merely have a computer and internet connection at hand, and know how to use Google. Wed 11 Jun 2008 17:37:15 GMT+1 saintlymark I don't think Strickland was ever a real runner for VP personally. Certainly not in the top echelons of consideration. There are two things wrong with his name as a consideration, one is that the old geographical rules just don't apply anymore. Gore lost his home state in 2000, John Edwards didn't help to take North Carolina. The second is there seem to be far more competent swing state Clinton backing governors, or at least those with executive experience in Rendell and Bayh. by the way slashdashunderscore, how exactly do you suggest Eisenhower made any moves towards integration (esp given that considered Chief Justice Warren his biggest mistake?) Truth is that most movement towards integration happened not through the executive branch but through firstly the judicial branch then the legislature. Wed 11 Jun 2008 17:27:42 GMT+1 SirRex Last comment: HAWAII !!!!It could really happen, with the time difference, but no suspense there, it would mean Obama and a lot for HAWAII !!!! Wed 11 Jun 2008 17:26:25 GMT+1 SirRex PS #51 Gary A Hill knows his shit, touche !My man, John Reed , too ! Wed 11 Jun 2008 17:21:38 GMT+1 SirRex In the USA we have, and must live with, a convoluted election 'system', one which 'experts' can 'work' the idiosyncrasies to 'engineer' an Electoral College triumph against the Popular Vote - in Primaries too !You could run an actual elephant and donkey and all but a couple states would vote the same as 4 years ago. Florida is long since lost for the Dems (remember the recent DNC meeting). It will come down to OHIO, INDIANA, MISSOURI, WISCONSIN and yes another state which the DNC RBC meeting alienated - MICHIGAN !My home state of VIRGINIA, interestingly, may be up for grabs, but I doubt this is the end - it's a solid Rep state, the home of Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell.In the end, as 4 years ago, OHIO will be the litmus test, so can you say Strickland ?But Strickland would mean alienating Clinton-ites and McCain could then Bogart in by selecting a woman as VP. Tough call, either Strickland or Clinton, then McCain will follow suit.It will be cat and mouse with the VP selections, Dems convention is a week earlier: Ad-In for the Reps. Wed 11 Jun 2008 17:17:40 GMT+1 SlashDashUnderscore Only one problem with that, DutchNemo - that presumes that Obama will win all the Kerry states. Polls at the moment indicate that Obama will lose Michigan and New Hampshire, (17 and 4 electoral votes respectively).KERRY STATES - MICHIGAN + IOWA + NEW MEXICO + COLORADO = 256 electoral votes = McCain victoryKERRY STATES - NEW HAMPSHIRE + IOWA + NEW MEXICO + COLORADO = 259 electoral votes = Tie, funnily enough, which even if Obama won the House of Representatives would not be an auspicious start to his presidencyOf course, losing both NH and Michigan dooms him unless he picks up states other than the three you mentioned (which looks fairly unlikely).So, unless both Michigan and New Hampshire stay in the Democratic fold, Obama will have to win with states other than Iowa, New Mexico and Colorado. Even with Ohio, Obama relies on Iowa, NM and Colorado to win if he can't win Michigan.So Ohio is still important Wed 11 Jun 2008 17:03:10 GMT+1 Gary_A_Hill An irrational fondness for direct democracy has long been a weakness of the Democratic Party. Perhaps that is why they have done so poorly in recent decades. Wed 11 Jun 2008 17:02:37 GMT+1 David Cunard #20 allmymarbles "your ESP is not working" -not my ESP but the result of a CNN poll released less than a week ago - 54% of Democrats want the runner-up. I've never expressed an opinion who should be the vice-presidential candidate, although given the sentiment among Democrats, the choice seems obvious to me.I've always thought it odd that there are not two ballots, one for president, one for vice-president rather than the two being tied together. Having an alternative president foisted on the public is hardly democratic! Wed 11 Jun 2008 16:48:51 GMT+1 DutchNemo ''I see meanwhile that Ohio is not necessarily going to be a shoo-in for Obama. But who needs it when you have Montana and... er... other places...''Obama doesn't need Ohio. He can compensate an Ohio loss when he wins New Mexico, Colorada and Iowa which he, according to the latest opinion polls, will win. Wed 11 Jun 2008 16:45:19 GMT+1 Gary_A_Hill SlashDashUnderscore (#47), Labor day is the first Monday in September in the U.S. According to my calendar, September 1 this year is also observed as Labor Day in Canada. I don't know if Canadians use our spelling or yours, however.Labor Day was first observed in the U.S. (in early September) in 1882. International Workers' Day (May Day) was first declared in 1889 by the 2nd Socialist International in commemoration of the Haymarket massacre in Chicago in 1886 (source: Socialist Review, May 2002). Wed 11 Jun 2008 16:39:00 GMT+1 SlashDashUnderscore I was going to put up the ad, Ed, but you got there first.I find it ironic (although not unexpected) that most of the slurs and articles that floated across the screen came from Daniel Pipes. I know what would happen (and it has happened, unfortunately, many times, in many countries) if an presidential candidate was every smeared for his Jewishness - Mr. Pipes would have a fit, and rightly so. Mr. Pipes' article: as I understand it, it is very easy to become a Muslim, but it definitely requires a free admission of the basic Islamic creed; that Allah is the only Almighty God, and Mohammed is his prophet (this statement is in fact one of the five pillars of Islam). Therefore, his 'proofs' (flimsy as they are) are unimportant (disregarding the fact that the whole issue is unimportant).It may not suprise you that the man behind this ad designed the infamous Willie Horton advertisement.Is this all that the American conservative movement has? If so, I don't think that Obama has anything to be worried about./-_ Wed 11 Jun 2008 16:36:13 GMT+1 SlashDashUnderscore #46I get really hacked off when American politicians (almost always Republican) put up Europe as a model of what America could become if their policies are not enacted. Hence Romney's comical warning that America could become 'the France of the 21st century'. The fact is, Continental nations seem to have a better quality of life than the Anglo-Saxon nations, and their countries are better governed, curse them. Although, that said, they do pay for their wonderful public services./-_ Wed 11 Jun 2008 16:15:29 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart Here it comes!xxed Wed 11 Jun 2008 16:11:43 GMT+1 SlashDashUnderscore #39Ed, I can tell you that it's bloody perculiar to have a friend who is an arch-conservative and worshipper of Milton Friedman and Margaret Thatcher cheering Obama on from the sidelines. Even the conservative intelligensia seems to be supporting him (British conservatives can never throw themselves into a frenzy about anyone as unimpressive as McCain, and military service means relatively little over here). This is probably because we see 'Republicans' as one mass blob, and because we are more socially liberal than the Republicans, and indeed most Americans.#41You've reminded me of the quaint American practice of celebrating Labour Day on 1st September rather than 1st May. Nothing, I think, shows the idiosynchratic American political character, and the character of her trades union, better than the decision to have her celebration of the working man as far away from Socialist May day as possible.#43Ed, you've put your finger on something there. Ike had gravitas, Kennedy had charisma. In my humble opinion, Eisenhower was actually the better president (although what Kennedy would have done with a second term is unknown), making the first big moves towards civil rights (despite his own instinctive caution), made firm but sensible choices in foreign affairs, and retained the New Deal programmes of his predecessors./-_ Wed 11 Jun 2008 16:08:10 GMT+1 jacksforge 27. At 2:40 pm on 11 Jun 2008, kecsmar wrote:#23 MAIIThe relevance of GB and Europe on Ohio escapes me...perhaps you could explain what has either to do with Ohio?it has no relevence all life is to bash europe and the UK for him the rest are red smelly fish. go see him on the euro blog some Knight is decimating him (actually all are). As to Ohio I got family there, I get my metallurgical coke from there. I actually think there are nice people in Ohio. Not happy with the way they vote most of the time though.maybe they have learnt their lesson. You cannot trust the GOP. Wed 11 Jun 2008 16:00:17 GMT+1 jalvarezv Gary_A_Hill (#42): there's also the Green candidate (I do think McKinney is running as Green). Wed 11 Jun 2008 15:55:03 GMT+1 SirRex #37 jalvarezvYeah, only puppets win elections, but Nader would/will shred both the Donkey and the Elephant and he may pick up a lot of protest vote. I'd like to see a real multi-party election, but the Rep-Dem machine would tag-team them out like Perot and Ventura. You know Bloomberg is ACDC, he could VP either way !#41 Gary HillKennedy famously won the TV debates and lost the radio versions of the same debates with that new media in 1960.Now the Internet has empowered "We the People". I hope they have a lot of sit-down face-to-face debates with Q's from the people. Now that would be REAL CHANGE ! Wed 11 Jun 2008 15:44:31 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart Gary,"Kennedy was our first president who was good on television."Actually, Ike wasn't too badSalaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Dorood/Peaceed Wed 11 Jun 2008 15:31:20 GMT+1 Gary_A_Hill jalvarezv (#37) correctly notes that there is another candidate in the race (Nader), and a Libertarian candidate as well. But he is whistling in the wind to hope that all candidates will be included in televised "debates."I'm not saying this because I am opposed to independent and minor party candidates. I am independent myself, and last registered with a party in 1972. In 1976 I supported McCarthy as an independent, and have been independent ever since. Naturally, McCarthy supporters complained about the minimal coverage, and believed he would have done better with more exposure. He did get more coverage than most candidates, however. In my state there were 12 candidates for president that year!Nader is getting to be a bit tiresome, in the manner of Harold Stassen. Some people credit him with tipping Florida to Bush in 2000, causing Gore to lose. We can't know if things would have been different without Nader in 2000, because alienated voters tend to stay away from the polls if they don't have a suitable candidate, but the mere possibility is something Nader should not be proud of. I'm ignoring Nader this year, and not bothered by the minimal coverage and handful of votes he will receive. Wed 11 Jun 2008 15:30:25 GMT+1 Gary_A_Hill SirRex (#34), how often they will meet on the same platform is a matter for the two to negotiate. McCain has proposed ten "town hall" meetings. This means that questions come directly from ordinary citizens, without moderation by professional journalists. That sounds like a lot to me, so I doubt Obama will go for that many.The press likes to have meetings which they moderate, usually with a small panel from various news organizations. The presidential candidates usually meet in these a few times (maybe three), the vice presidential candidates once. This format was used for one Clinton/Obama "debate" and the press moderators were criticized severely for the superficiality of the questions, dominated by tabloid stuff.We'll just have to wait and see what happens. I think it's best to wait until after Labor Day (Sep. 1 this year) for serious debates, but who knows what they will do and who will be perceived as the "winner."By the way, the so-called "debates" were widely credited with giving Kennedy a boost over Nixon in 1960. Kennedy was our first president who was good on television. Wed 11 Jun 2008 15:16:56 GMT+1 jalvarezv And for those who think that Bush should be impeached, Kucinich is trying to get the discussion going in the House with his proposed resolution with 35 articles of impeachment: your House representative to get it on the table. Wed 11 Jun 2008 15:15:01 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart For Marcus,Some Blind Spots and Hypocrisies of European Obamamania Despite the swooning praises of Obama from the western European chattering classes, the reality is that someone in their own countries with Obama's political style would actually turn them off. A European candidate with Obama's message of hope and idealism would make a lot of European journalists, intellectuals, and politicians roll their eyes. And in western European countries with established party systems, it would be almost impossible for a political outsider like Obama to vault over a party hierarchy so dramatically....But the most fundamental reasons run deeper. A number of European countries have elected women to high political office, even the highest. (Score that one for the Europeans, at least some of them.) But as Jerry Karabel and I pointed out, none of them has ever elected a non-white person of any extraction to its highest political office -- that is, head of state or head of government. (Actually, no predominantly-white country in the world has ever elected a black person to its highest political office.)But, but, but.... Obama's just as White as he is Black! Duh!Salaam, etc.ed Wed 11 Jun 2008 15:09:35 GMT+1 SlashDashUnderscore Ohio will be a toss-up like it was last election.Thank God the 'bitter' tape can't be played again and again on the radio there - if you've tried listening to it, it's virtually inaudible./-_ Wed 11 Jun 2008 14:52:37 GMT+1 jalvarezv SirRex (#34) is curious about the debates but mentions only Obama and McCain. Nader would easily come on top of both so I hope that all candidates are included in these debates.This poll puts Nader at 6%, in spite of getting almost no news coverage (Justin?): hope that now that the primaries are over there'll be more coverage of the other candidates (Justin?). Wed 11 Jun 2008 14:51:43 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart Silver Surfers Unite!;-)ed Wed 11 Jun 2008 14:48:30 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart SirRex,"awful speaker" for sure, but "very believable"??? I think you've got to want to believe, as is so often the case on all sides.Do you believe he actually believes anything?Wes Clarke hasn't got too high an opinion of him, but then he wouldn't, would he?We'll see.Salaam, etc.ed Wed 11 Jun 2008 14:40:29 GMT+1 SirRex I'm very curious, Obama is an incredible orator, but not as good on his feet debating live; furthermore he is such a great orator that he may appear "slick" at times.McCain is an awful speaker, but quite good on his feet and very believable.How often will they meet and who will come out on top ? Wed 11 Jun 2008 14:28:08 GMT+1 ronaine Fabulous Onion piece, and exploring further I really enjoyed the Mitt Romney 'runs negative ad about himself' story and the 'disturbing love letters from soldiers in Iraq' story. Top newspaper, I should read it more often.And it strikes me the only sensible way to approach the next 5 months (and the focus of the American voting public's dilemma) is via comedy. After all you gotta laugh or else you'd cry...:) Wed 11 Jun 2008 14:23:54 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart Rueben,Is this one genuine?Rivetting stuff! Just look at the enthusiastic crowd.;-)ed Wed 11 Jun 2008 14:11:45 GMT+1 SirRex Reuben (#29) Come, come you seem smarter than that ! You even said it yourself, "(Voodoo economics) was ultimately proved wrong", perhaps like 'Voodoo Politics' shall be.Obama's victory in Idaho was based on all those Republicans voting for the Dem that they feel they have the best chance to beat in November, Obama. There were rightfully scared of Clinton.Ah yes, Voodoo Politics ! Wed 11 Jun 2008 13:50:36 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart Reuben,Thanks. I thought it was genuine.;-)ed Wed 11 Jun 2008 13:49:39 GMT+1 Reuben34g Ed (#14): That the video was edited by cutting out words to make McCain apear tosay things he didn't.That was a very poor attempt to attribute Dubya style Bushizms to McCain.Rex (#26): "Voodoo economics" was George H. W. Bush's premature critzism of Ronald Reagon's economic ideas in during the republican primary election of 1980, I don't see what impact that statement (which was ultimately proved wrong) has on this election.Obama's landslide victory over Hillary in Idaho is not an indication of how he'll do in the general election, but of how much people in that state dislike Clinton. Idaho is clearly a red state, despite a few democrats living in Boise. Wed 11 Jun 2008 13:42:37 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart Who needs women?Public information serviceMcDumb for POTUS!xxed Wed 11 Jun 2008 13:41:24 GMT+1 kecsmar #23 MAIIThe relevance of GB and Europe on Ohio escapes me...perhaps you could explain what has either to do with Ohio? Wed 11 Jun 2008 13:40:48 GMT+1 SirRex This post has been Removed Wed 11 Jun 2008 13:13:22 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart Meerkat,To catch a thief....;-) Wed 11 Jun 2008 11:43:48 GMT+1 powermeerkat Who needs James A. Johnson, a former Fannie Mae chief executive and Washington insider since the Carter administration, rejected by John Kerry afraid of embarassment because of accusations that JJ was involved in shady insider deals and received preferential mortgage loans? Is he really needed to lead the vetting of potential running mates for the Democratic Party's presumptive presidential nominee? Who stresses a need for change? Wed 11 Jun 2008 11:10:50 GMT+1 MarcusAureliusII Who needs Ohio? I think Ohioans might feel some attachment to their state. How selfish of them. More to the point who needs Great Britain? Or for that matter who needs Europe? I can't see where it's of any value to me :-) Wed 11 Jun 2008 11:07:40 GMT+1 vagueofgodalming Oh, I hope Justin sticks to politics, as the alternative seems to be attempts to locate the 1950s in small out-of-the-way parts of the USA, and then compare them favourably to Britain. Wed 11 Jun 2008 08:58:54 GMT+1 lechic I'm sorry but that weird picture of Obama/Clinton hybrid freaks me out every time I look at this blog! It should come with a warning. Although at certain angles (and times of the morning) it does look a bit like Aslan from the Narnia series, which is no less disturbing.I'm looking forward to being on the same continent as the election when it happens. I'll be in Canada, not the US, but it'll be a lot closer than I would be at home. I'll be keeping up with this blog too even though my mum doesn't like you, sorry Justin. Wed 11 Jun 2008 07:49:55 GMT+1 allmymarbles #12. David Cunard, your ESP is not working. Neither Clinton nor Gore will be the vice president. Clinton repesents the establishment politics that Obama opposes and Gore would not want the job. Your dedication to Clinton is clouding your perception. Moreover, Clinton was not in a bargaining position so she could not force her way onto the ticket. Her supporters, for the most part, will drift away, and since Bubba has lost his clout so will most of his political and business connections. The Clinton machine is disintegrating. Wed 11 Jun 2008 07:48:18 GMT+1 OnlyHereForTheFood If Ohio was a shoo-in at this stage then we might has well just go home and get drunk for five months. Wed 11 Jun 2008 07:40:19 GMT+1 NotAllWhoWander Ohio has in reality been an indicator, not a determinant in past elections. Please give our state a break from the illogical statements that our populace has determined past elections. Anyway Strickland has too little experience to be a serious consideration for such a post. Wed 11 Jun 2008 05:09:43 GMT+1 allmymarbles Mr. Webb, I don't think the subject of Ohio and which party will win it is of particular importance at this point in time. I wish you would introduce a subject that is of immediate interest. The controversy over Iran, and the different party stances, for instance, might elicit more fervor. Wed 11 Jun 2008 03:13:49 GMT+1 gunsandreligion justcorbly, #11, you are surely referringto a part of the country where a popularjoke, concerning a mother's evaluation ofthe suitability of a bride for her son endswith the punch line:"Well, if she isn't good enough for herfamily, she certainly isn't good enoughfor ours!"Justin,From your opinion of Ohio, I can see an army of redcoats now portagingfrom lake superior west to Montana, andwinding up in Yellowstone or Big Sky, intime for ski season. One if by land, two if by sea, three ifby or Orbitz. Wed 11 Jun 2008 02:27:47 GMT+1 kecsmar #3 allmymarblesI couldn't agree more, however, this is the US, not Europe. Americans vote for a leader an icon per se, not the party.I have seen many news reports showing Clinton supporters saying they will probably, or will, vote for McCain now she is out, as they can't/wont vote for Obama.!!!Go figure.... Wed 11 Jun 2008 02:17:20 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart McFoot-in-mouth;-)ed Wed 11 Jun 2008 01:51:51 GMT+1 allmymarbles Realy! At this stage of the game who cares about Ohio, or New Jersey or Arizona, or any other state? We are suffering election fatigue and would love to put all this political stuff aside for a while. Get back in touch in September. As for me, I am going to enjoy the summer. Wed 11 Jun 2008 01:18:22 GMT+1