<p>Also, Im pretty shocked Clinton’s winning the black vote. I knew Bill was popular among black people, but I seriously didn’t expect Hillary’s plantation analogies to get her a bigger share of the black vote than Obama. Not to say that I think all black people will vote for Obama just because he’s black, but I thought that the ones who do think that way, plus the ones who consider the fact that Obama is a symbol of the racism they’ve overcome for a couple centuries as a “tiebreaker”, would at least get him the majority among his own race.</p>
<p>Umm…what?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I haven’t seen any Republicans jump ship from Bush on the war. Oh sure, some of them talk a good story, but when it’s time to vote, they continue to march in goosestep with their leader. Susan Collins, John Sununu…welcome to your mightmare in Nov 2008.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Voting is all fine and dandy. The evangenical churches have been the backbone of both the Republican smear machine (for example, if you want to spread rumors in S. Carolina that McCain fathered a black illegitimate child) and the Republican get out the vote operation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think she is winning the black vote. I think she’s holding her own and splitting the black vote with Obama…which is, of course, devastating for him.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hillary Clinton is not John Kerry. I don’t think there was a single voter enthusiastic about Kerry and even his wife wasn’t enthusiastic about him. The Clinton campaign is the not the Kerry campaign.</p>
<p>Penn. has voted Democratic in the presidential race for the last 16 years. Wisc. and Oregon have voted Dem. in the presidential race for the last 20 years. Minn. has voted Dem. for the last 30 years. What about the Republican trends today leads you to believe they will realistically flip red in 2008? That’s as silly as me saying that the Democrats could flip South Carolina or Mississippi. The Republicans haven’t even stopped the bleeding from the 2006 election in Pennsylvania yet; they are still triaging the Republican candidates. </p>
<p>Here’s the problem the Republicans have. In the 2004 election, 53% of the Penn voters were female and 18% were minorities, both groups break heavily Democratic, especially for a female candidate who polls off the charts with every minority group and especially with the Republicans threatening everything short of lynchings against Latinos in their immigration meltdown.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, that’s really why they’re voting for her. Can’t be that black people study the issues like white people do. </p>
<p>Groan.</p>
<p>Here is a good roundup of articles about Huckabee and the clemency issue.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.arkansasleader.com/frontstories/st_08_11_04/huckabee8.html[/url]”>http://www.arkansasleader.com/frontstories/st_08_11_04/huckabee8.html</a></p>
<p>We haven’t heard much about this yet on the national scene other than the Dumond case, but if he gets tapped as vice president I expect this will be huge. </p>
<p>I don’t know that we’ve ever had anyone run as P or VP who as governor simply ignored his state constitution and state law the way Huckabee did in Arkansas. (He refused to comply the parts of the law that said that he had to state a reason for granting clemency and get input from prosecutors and the victims’ families). </p>
<p>The Republicans are already hurting on separation of powers issues, so I see a lot of people being concerned about this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Que? I don’t think white voters are very informed either fyi. I’m an equal opportunity cynicist.</p>
<p>OK, I live in Arkansas and this marriage issue has been in the papers the last couple days. Today my 16 yo D asked me if she could get married (no particular guy in mind. . .) I told her she’d have to take a pregnancy test first. . .</p>
<p>BTW, anyone ever seen the movie “Melody?” (Late 60s? 70ish? BeeGees music. . .about two (11yo?) kids in London who want to get married).
Sweet movie.</p>
<p>Posts 4 and 5…</p>
<p>Post 4 was not an attempted to be humorous….</p>
<p>it was and is simply, a nasty comment….nasty comments when they are “presented” as humor once or twice can be accepted as poor and/or failed attempts at humor….However when someone repeatedly makes nasty comments, under the false pretense of humor, the commentator loses all claim to humor and the comments all claim to funny….</p>
<p>Before anyone asks…. the above is my personal opinion and is not meant to be anything other than an opinion, I put on the table for people to think about……most of my rational for this opinion comes from the things my mother taught me when I was a child……</p>
<p>^ Post #4 was a joke. I should know, I wrote it. Sorry tommykill if you have no sense of humor, or failed to see the humor in a post. Guess what? I found your last post to be very nasty and pointedly condescending. Many of your posts are nasty and condescending in my opinion. Please do not pass judgment on the intent of the post. That should be left to the descretion of the poster, and any interpretations to the other readers. This is afterall, an anonymous board, open to all comments and posts, whether you agree or not. Fortunately, some saw post #4 for the humor intended. If you didn’t see the humor, move on. :mad:</p>
<p>To be honest, I did not get the purpose of your last post at all. I won’t even try to interpret it for the other readers. My mother taught me that if you have nothing good to say you may not want to say anything. :D</p>
<p>P.S. For future reference, the smiley faces( :)) and or grins (:D) and winks (;))usually mean that the poster is attempting humor. 
(wink)</p>
<ul>
<li>spell check doesn’t always work.(discretion)</li>
</ul>
<p>Calling a nasty remark a joke doesn’t make it a joke …saying something nasty with a smile on you face doesn’t turn it into a pleasant comment…. </p>
<p>if you didn’t denigrate one or both of the Clintons in post after post after post I am sure I would not have commented, but since you denigrate them on a regular bases I felt free to point it out. After all you yourself said, “This is afterall, an anonymous board, open to all comments and posts, whether you agree or not.” </p>
<p>You said….“Post #4 was a joke. I should know, I wrote it”….So there will be no misunderstanding…I don’t believe you, I don’t think it was intended to be a joke, I believe it was intended to be a nasty comment. Having said that, I will quickly concede that I could be wrong and that you are in fact a very kind and humorous person whose humor is lost on me.</p>
<p>^ Thank you. I accept your concession. You were wrong.</p>
<p>I will add that you mentioned in one of your posts that you worked with Mrs. Clinton about 35 years ago, and that you actually have a picture of the two of you holding hands under a Christmas tree if I remember accurately. I can not help but notice that you get defensive when anyone (not just me) makes any derogatory or remotely unflattering remarks (or jokes) about the Clintons. Is it possible that you still harbor some feelings from the past that might influence your own views?</p>
<p>Anyway, thanks again for your concession. You were wrong, and you admitted that such was a possibilty. Most people who know me understand my wit and humor and appreciate it. The fact that a virtual stranger may or may not believe me means nothing to me. For the record, I personally have no ill feelings toward Bill Clinton. I already mentioned on another post that I voted for him twice.</p>
<p>
Republican = Nazi ??
and the civil rights movement (black churches) and the democratic base (black churches)</p>
<p>I appreciate the magnanimity you have shown with regard to my admitting that I may fail to properly appreciate you style of humor.</p>
<p>I will take the liberty to continue to point out those examples of your humor and thinking that I don’t appreciate and perhaps you will be kind enough to explain yourself in a way that is not offensive.</p>
<p>A former vice president of the Southern Baptist Convention has issued a fatwa that Christians are commanded by God to pray for the deaths of members of a watchdog group who objected to his issuing a political endorsement for fellow SBC minister Huckabee using tax-exempt church resources.</p>
<p>Not only are the faithful to pray for the deaths of Rev. Lynn and other staff, they are also to pray that their children become homeless and have to beg in the streets.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/17/politics/main3180892.shtml?source=mostpop_story[/url]”>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/17/politics/main3180892.shtml?source=mostpop_story</a></p>
<p>To his credit, Huckabee has characterized the call for imprecatory prayer as “evil.”</p>
<p>And a liberal Nobel prize winner wishes Bush dead, what’s the diff…? There are crazies on both sides and in every group. None of them define the normal people on either side.</p>
<p>True, bandit. It is not the same though. One screwed up the whole world, while the other just screwed the preacher.</p>
<p>Post 35 …My real concern is that when the Southern Baptist Convention was given a chance to disassociate them selves from Wiley’s remarks they chose not to. </p>
<p>from post 36 “And a liberal Nobel prize winner wishes Bush dead, what’s the diff…?”</p>
<p>the diff is …when the Southern Baptist Convention was given a chance to disassociate them selves from Wiley’s remarks they chose not to.</p>
<p>I’d be more concerned about the influence of a Nobel Peace Prize winner than a crazy preacher. As I remember, the Nobel committee didnot recall her prize either.</p>
<p>I’m not familiar with the situation with the Nobel laureate, but I think there’s a difference between wishing someone dead and asking other people to take steps to make it happen–which is what the SBC minister did. Either 1. he doesn’t believe that prayers do anything or 2. he’s ordering people who rely on him for leadership to collude in the men’s deaths and the lifetime impoverishment of their children.</p>
<p>He’s not just some crazy preacher either. He’s been as high as #2 in the SBC national convention, and he’s running for the #1 spot.</p>