Maybe, but Hillary still brings in a lot of Democratic votes. Maybe he'll pick Edwards!

I'm really not hyped over the current choices. The Dukakis analogy seems fitting.

Catocony:

Excellent point, as always, re: McCain/Goldwater analogy. I was referring, however, to the conversations between Kennedy and Goldwater in '63 about actually campaigning together in '64 - stumping, debating, the whole nine yards. Goldwater's granddaughter talked about it in that HBO documentary that ran last year.

It is a crazy strategy to talk about, but my point is really this: Obama and McCain are sufficiently divorced from partisan orthodoxy to actually engage in substantive conversation about issues before the electorate, rather than try to kill each other through surrogates. Any of the other candidates from either party would be too focused on win mechanics to actually talk.

Maybe I'm smoking dope, but I think a match up like that would be interesting to watch.

Cheers,
Pendejo

My real concern about Obama is that I know nothing about him. How's he going to react after 10 months of the spotlight on him? He's been given a major pass so far, but what will happen when the arrows start flying? What skelatons does this guy have in his closet? If I'm a Republican strategist he's a great target, probably even better than Hillary. Here's a guy, an actual African/American, with a very foreign name, almost Muslim. Something about attending a Muslim madras somewhere, his dad's not even an American.....something about using cocaine, not much of a track record, how did this guy really make his money....

Remember guys, Obama has never really run a competitve campaign before, either for Illinois senate or US Senate. There are just too many unknowns there. Yeah, Hillary is very devisive, but we all know that. There aren't any skelatons in her closet, everything is in the open. Which, if you're a Democratic strategist, is great since there won't be any surprises. That's what usually kills you, the surprises.

Obama may be clean as a whistle and truthful and honest and intelligent and may make a great president. Or he could have been snorting coke for years and beat up a girlfriend or took a meeting with Chicago gangsters or is a member of the Communist Party or who the fuck knows. That's the concern - I don't think there's been proper vetting of this guy.

Luckily for us, this year, the Republicans are in shambles and their selection process is going to be bloodier and more damaging than the Democratic one, under any scenario. So, I say let the primaries run and see where we stand at the convention. In the past it was usually a marathon, kicking off in late winter and running through late spring. Now, after one day of caucusing (which is horse trading at best) of one farm state, everyone is jumping on the Obama (and Huckabee) bandwagons. I say let these guys run in front for a few weeks, where Clinton and Romney and Giuliani and the others suddenly pronounced "dead" have been for a year. Then make a decision.

What if it turns out Obama is one of those nasty dirty sex tourists.

Do you mean like John Kennedy and Bill Clinton?

I belong to the same gym as Obama and his locker is around the corner from mine. He has always treated everyone with respect. I remember a guy who went up to him while he was changing and was talking to him about his brother who was either in prison or facing some serious prison time(around a year or so ago before he announced he was running) Obama, who is in the midst of getting dressed, paid attention, asked a couple of pertinent questions and said he would look into it. I have seen that kind of behavior over and over again. He has outstanding interpersonal skills. On the other hand a friend of mine is close to the Clinton campaign and refers to Hillary's inner circle as "The Cabal", no one gets close to Hillary, they all go through one of her people. I hope Obama wins, I would like to have a president who can listen to any citizen and treat that person with respect. I also want a president who understands what the average citizen goes through to survive. Personally I hope he chooses Richardson or Wes Clark as a running mate, both have solid foreign policy experience. America doesn't need another isolated President who only knows what they are told by their inner circle. The funny thing is that even though I am a moderate, the other person I respect is McCain, he has a high level of integrity. I would vote for him over Clinton, although I disagree with more of his political positions than Clintons.

Easily the most fascinating candidate is Ron Paul. I've never heard a candidate say the things he says since he said it 20 years ago in the 1988 election. He doesn't pander one bit. You know if guys like the FOX boys Hannity et al try to discredit you you're saying something right. Every time I listen to him, I think, "Wow, that makes sense". This guy is all about individual freedoms and keeping America safer by rehauling our foreign policy. He's a Republican in name only. He's some kind of hybrid anarchist/constitutionalist. He won't win but he's got my write-in.

It is getting close to time for me to toss my hat into the ring. My slogan "Do it with bliss in '08" targets the woman vote which will be the swing factor in this election.

It is nothing new for someone in my family to hold public prominence. One relative held an entire town transfixed as he delivered impassioned oratory on a public platform in the town sqare. Not a word was spoken until after the lever was thrown and the the trap door was sprung.

What I need most of all is a good scandal to capture the public's imagination. So, I have taken out an ad for a long-legged Latina to accompany me on a hedonsitic weekend to "Mount Bliss". I will throw a blue dress into deal to entice just the right woman.

So, please support me in this endeavor and encourage the support of all of your associates to do the same. Go on record for the "candidate of change" by writing your name, email address and phone number on the back of a 100 dollar bill and mail it to any one of a number of Post Office boxes that I will soon make semi-public.

Just remember, "you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him gather moss". And you can quote me on that.

I am blissman and I approved this message. But please do not ask me to say that under oath, ok?

Bliss,

That certainly was a change of pace, and I support you candidacy and also the long legged Latina. I placed my name on a hundred dollar bill and you should be receiving it shortly.

Back on topic.

I really believe that Obama is the front runner. There is one huge difference between Dean and Obama - MONEY. Let's not forget that Obama outraised Hillary. Dean danced like a monkey and then he was gone. I don't think that Obama will make such a gaffe, and money covers up a lot of sins.

More interesting is the Republican side. Similar to how Obama and Edwards are ganging up on Clinton, it seems all the other Republicans despise Romney and his attack ads. So it is hard to see him winning. Huckabee is a zealot with not much staying power. Guliani is an egotistical war monger. I like Ron Paul quite a bit but his campaign is still underfunded to make a good run. So I come to the conclusion that McCain is the front runner on the Republican side.

WoW-- now let's here all the rationalizations by the annoiters!

Here are two for you DM:

(1) Who could have predicted that a candidate crying in front of a crowd in New Hampshire could thereby revive her candidacy? Muskie must be rolling over in his grave.

(2) After the polls showed such a big margin for Obama, many of the independent voters who were inclined to vote for him decided not to waste their votes in a race that was already decided. So instead they voted for McCain in what was perceived as the closer Republican primary (I suspect though the exit polls will only show partial support for this hypothesis).

I am sure we will be able to come up with more rationalizations with more time.

I'm very happy about this. It can only serve to strengthen whoever wins the dems eventual nod.

McCain is all done now-- thank god. The senile bastard cannot even deliver a few words in his moment of glory.

ohh and Edwards in now offically dead. I think he even knows it now.

I agree about Edwards. His only chance as of earlier today was if Hillary got a near knock out blow, and Edwards over time was able to sneak in as the only viable alternative to Obama. That obviously hasn't happened.

Well, very interesting. It's about 10:45 EST and only about 75% of the vote is in, Obama is conceding right now. From 10 points down to 10 points up to a few points down, what does it all mean? Not much, really, except there will be a good row of primaries and caucuses.

Still looking like Clinton vs. McCain in November. The Obama momentum surge was a bit lower than expected and the support for Clinton appears deeper and wider than expected.

Whoever wins the Democratic nomination wins the Presidency.

Cat, I concur on all points. Fun stuff. Now the GOP needs to muster up something to excite their base... if only to make a decent game out of it.

Ohh, as I expressed dismay is Mitt's pathetic speach in Iowa, his rhetoric tonight leaves me scratching my head. What happened to the articuate guy that I've heard speak several times in person? It leads me to believe that he's quite frazzled. If he doesn't win the next primary, he's finished.

(Message edited by donmarco on January 08, 2008)

Edwards would be an amazing president. Too bad people are too stupid to vote for him or identify with him.

what has edwards done in his political life that is remotely close to amazing?

There's nothing unique about raise taxes, pro union, pro healthcare, pro choice.

(Message edited by donmarco on January 09, 2008)

DM,

I think the chances of a Mormon yankee winning in South Carolina as being remote. Maybe in Nevada, lots of Mormons out there, but as I stated days ago I think he's done. Iowa was his kickoff, he was supposed to win it by a mile, he got stomped. He did ok last night, 31-32%, but I don't see much upside to the guy.

Giuliani better pray he wins in Florida or Michigan, everyone has forgotten about him at this point.

Unless one of the zealots get the Republican nomination, I think it is their presidency.

I don't think Obama or Hilary can win.

The next primaries will be more telling.

The race is in flux as it was always going to be - the matter really won't be close to settled until Feb 5th. But Obama's pickup of a key union endorsement in NV translates into bodies on the ground in a state that requires strong organizational abilities because it caucuses. South Carolina is still up for grabs on the D side as well. The question there in my mind is whether Edwards is relevant enough to cut into Obama's support.

As for the R's - they are going to do a fine enough job slashing themselves on the way to the convention. McCain's exit polling does him no good with the conservative base, but his electability vis-a-vis the D's is without question, especially when you look at Romney and Huckabee.

We will still have an interesting primary season. I remain convinced that an Obama-McCain general would be generally salutory for the body politic writ large, given the alternative line ups - especially after seeing David Brooks' commentary in yesterdays NYT and the op-ed in today's NYT. Be that as it may, it is still too early to call anything, but I'd vote for either guy as my president.

Sniper,

Very little chance of a Republican President. The two decent candidates - McCain and Giulani - are despised by the conservative base and one of their nomimations will suppress turnout. Huckaby would turn off every independent, Romney appeals to no one, Thompson may still be in the race but looks ready for a retirement home. With the overall Republican approval ratings where they are, The Bush Regime, and now a probable recession on the way, it will be extremely difficult for the Republican nominee to win. Obama is the weakest of the three Democrats, from an electability standpoint. But, he would do well against any of the Republicans.

Not much on either side of the fence I'm afraid. But I think there is no way a black man or woman will take the White House this time.

But I'll tell you, unless I see Giuliani on the Republican ticket, I'm voting Democrat.

Not that I like Giuliani, but he's the only Republican that won't be trying to legislate my morality.

Out of everyone, I'd be the happiest with Edwards. But that isn't going to happen.

I'm not so sure Obama would be the least electable, although I am concerned about this. If Bloomberg enters the race, as there are indications he is seriously considering, this could hurt the Democratic candidate; the word out there is he would be less apt to do so if Obama ran although the whole Bloomberg factor is very difficult to analyze.

Second, after Colin Powell talked up Obama a couple of days ago, it occurred to me that Obama might be able to get a number of moderate Republicans who were present at that Oklahoma conference (as well as some who were not) on board and might even be able to during the general election campaign present a proposed (although partial) bi-partisan cabinet to the public, including Colin Powell and a few moderate Republicans. The general electorate may respond very favorably to this sort of thing, which Hillary would not be able to even approach.

So my thinking is that although there are some real risks with Obama as a candidate, there are some possibilities that could greatly enhance his ability to defeat the Republican presidential candidate. I therefore believe he has greater potential to be a strong Democratic candidate than the others, but also to be the weakest Democratic candidate given that he is untested, and so forth. If I thought Hillary had a lock on winning the general election, she might seem the safer choice for a Democratic voter in the primaries. But she doesn't, and therefore from a purely electability standpoint, it is difficult for me to choose between the two.

Where, if at all, is my analysis in error? Alternatively, do you think my suggestions about possible upside scenarios to Obama as a candidate pipedreams?

I hate to toot my own horn (not really) but if you check up the thread at my Jan 4 post you'll see I called Hillary beating Obama in NH. I still don't think it is anything that she did - I'm actually surprised her crying stunt didn't turn off more people than it did - but rather Bill's continued popularity and support in the Granite State. (One poll I read said that 1/3 of Dems would've voted for Bill over either Hillary or Obama if he were eligible.) So now the real Democratic primary battles will begin.

SC will be a HUGE test for Obama. He needs to do well in the South - even though the South is not as important for Democrats as it historically was - in order to be a viable candidate. In the end, I think that we will somehow end up with a Clinton/Obama (or is that Obama/Clinton?) ticket. I doubt, however, that she would accept the VP slot if Obama became the party's nominee. It's my gut feeling that the country is more likely to accept a black man as president than a women. I have nothing to back that up with, it's just a hunch.

In order for Obama to be really effective he has to continue to play to Joe Average White guy while organizing the black community to get out and vote in a way that historically has been very difficult to do. (The black community, although the largest single ethic group - besides white - in the U.S. has historically one of the poorest voting records in terms of voter turnout over the last 30 years.) Organizing ethnic groups to vote is something that Dems do not seem to do as well as Reps.

As far as the republicans go, who the hell knows? I mean this is as wide open as it gets. McCain is the guy that I would vote for if I were to vote republican. But having said that I think whatever democrat is thrown out there will become the eventual winner.

Interesting stuff so far.

EA

(Message edited by el_apodo on January 09, 2008)

It boggles my mind what absolute truth comes out of an absolute M-I-R-A-G-E of the early ABSOLUTELY MEANINGLESS early primaries from shithole states that don't have enough people to elect a regional dogcatcher, much less a president. The GOOD news (I guess) is that if one of those lucky enough to grab a headline of "XXXXXXXXXXX WINS!" (with a whopping extra 2 delegates to the national convention...), they won't ever have to spend a dime or set foot in that state again until running for re-election 4 years later.

Again, no one SHOULD give a shit about who gets 1% more of the vote in New Fucking Hampshire in January of an election year. But the media circus somehow turns these things into real victories.

Porker, while I agree with you often with regards to whoring, I cannot say the same with your political stances. In fact, I believe quite the opposite. It is a game of momentum and shit hole states loom large.

not to reintroduce race, but does a certain poster feel less proud being black now that Obama lost a primary? hint: it's not about pride, but logic.

(Message edited by donmarco on January 09, 2008)

Porker, of course you're correct about what should be meaningful and what should be meaningless. However, that kind of logic has been gone from U.S. politics since around 1776, mas o menos.

Like Don Marco says, it really is all about momentum and also "what have you accomplished lately?" It is about MONEY RAISING for the next campaign stop plain and simple, and New Hampshire was nominating presidential candidates before electronic media was omnipresent. Now it is only worse.

This country has the greatest constitution and governmental system on paper, and the most insane and childish politics and manners of anointing popularity or infamy upon its political figures.

Our politics castrate the great vision of our democracy! The problem does not lie entirely with politicians and media, but with rank and file Americans who cast clueless votes - if they read newspapers and really understood issues, then they wouldn't be so influenced by spin doctors and image makers.

(Message edited by erip on January 09, 2008)

>>Not that I like Giuliani, but he's the only Republican that won't be trying to legislate my morality.

Would that be the same Giuliani that proposed, then pushed hard for, gov't regulations that forced the closure of all the adult oriented businesses in Times Square?


New York Times, September 11, 1994 (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9506E2D9163BF932A2575AC0A962958260)

"Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani proposed sweeping new zoning regulations yesterday that would restrict sex-oriented video stores, X-rated theaters and topless bars to a few relatively isolated nonresidential neighborhoods."


Giuliani is no friend to the monger. But then neither is any other candidate. The best we can hope for is a candidate who will ignore us and instead focus on real issues of significance (and direct law enforcement, immigration & customs, etc to do likewise).

New Hampshire is 44% independents, 30% Republicans and 26% Democrats.

The top three Democrats collected 265,661 votes.

The top three Republicans collected 190,409 votes.

Although New Hampshire is considered to be a reliable RED state, their voters are not very motivated. Me thinks the stinking republicans are in trouble no matter who they nominate.

Hillary Clinton beat John McCain by 23,791 votes.

Barack Obama beat John McCain by 16,310 votes.

Here is the finishing order excluding candidates under 5000 votes:

( 1) 112,238 votes for Hillary Clinton (D)
( 2) 104,757 votes for Barack Obama (D)
( 3) 88,447 votes for John McCain (R)
( 4) 75,202 votes for Mitt Romney (R)
( 5) 48,666 votes for John Edwards (D)
( 6) 26,760 votes for Mike Hucksterbee (R)
( 7) 20,387 votes for Rudolf Guiliani (R)
( 8) 18,276 votes for Ron Paul (R/L)
( 9) 13,245 votes for Bill Richardson (D)

source:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#NH
2008-JAN-9, 2315 MST

DM...logic?? Clearly, my post went right over your head....as expected!

I previously stated in my earlier post,

Man…..this guy makes me proud to be a black American, as he is constantly showing he can overcome huge obstacles and pre-conceived notions made by many......

Given Obama's accomplishment in these two states, which are majority white....I clearly did not consider this a "loss".

Far from it my friend... Hillary only beat him by a very samll percentage.....hint!

As Obama stated in his victory speech in Iowa.....if you were to look back 10 years ago and ask if a black man could achieve this goal in two majority white states.....of course, you would have said "no".

And yes, I continue to be proud for this Country and as a black american....when I see incidents of this nature OR states in huge numbers... judging a person's character...versus skin color.

However....maybe that is a little too much for you to handle or understand....

Priew

(Message edited by priew100 on January 10, 2008)

"DM...logic?? Clearly, my post went right over your head....as expected"



Comment: Surely even a lawyer in the age of affirmative action can apply if/then suppositions.




"Man…..this guy makes me proud to be a black American, as he is constantly showing he can overcome huge obstacles and pre-conceived notions made by many..."

Comment: What obstacles or pre-conceived notions? Ohh he's brown... Is race the only thing you see? As for my earlier claim and asking about the logic, should I be proud that a white male won the primary for the GOP both times? Should I be not as proud because an italian american didn't win? My point is of what relevance does one's INDIVIDUAL PRIDE have to do with anyone or anything else?

Maybe, your right I don't get insecurity issues of minorities and how they rationize what's going on around them.



"Given Obama's accomplishment in these two states, which are majority white....I clearly did not consider this a "loss"


Comment: I see... I'll remind the colts of that if the pats beat them 30-29.

We live in a binary world... there is always a winner and loser by definition.


"As Obama stated in his victory speech in Iowa.....if you were to look back 10 years ago and ask if a black man could achieve this goal in two majority white states.....of course, you would have said "no"


Comment: Even more unlikely of a thought 10 years ago is that the black man would lose to a woman.


"And yes, I continue to be proud for this Country and as a black american....when I see incidents of this nature OR states in huge numbers... judging a person's character...versus skin color"


Comment: Diatribe aside, this is also my point. I gave kudos to Barak in Iowa and elsewhere, but I didn't do so because he was a particular color. However, for you, you see color first or even that's all you see. At least by your posts. Perhaps you can quote yourself where you mentioned something about his political record?

"However....maybe that is a little too much for you to handle or understand"


Comment: Perhaps, but it's just as likely that those that identify as "mr pimp" have some racial hangups and/or insecurities.

We live in a binary world... there is always a winner and loser by definition.

While certainly true in a winner-take-all national election, this is absolute BULLSHIT in the primaries, and the exact point that I tried to make above: 1 extra delegate from the shitstain (populationwise) states isn't gonna make an iota of a difference in the big nomination picture.

Except, however, as Erip says, the US has a culture of MORONS who read (or, more likely, hear Fox News tell them...) the fucking "Hillary WINS" bumblefuck primary headlines and somehow thinks, OMG, I gotta vote (or more importantly, DONATE $$) for HER... And all the other candidates make suicidal moves based on such "logic".

uhh huh. You got a lot of angst-- did you get your mexican citizenship? ;)

I just hope for the sake of peace on this board the next President has a universal health care program that distributes pms medication to all in need, irrespective of race, religion, or gender.

The Democratic Party's nomination is Hilary's to lose. Under present rules she has a big advantage.

Obama's problem is that Democrats' delegates are decided proportionally, by congressional district. That means that even if a candidate loses a state by 60-40 percent, he or she still gets around 40 percent of the delegates in the primary. In closer contests, like say a 55%-45% popular vote result, in some states the rules could end up splitting the delegate count close to 50-50.

Clinton is doing better than Obama among the super-delegate dignitaries that gain automatic admission to the democratic convention and comprise almost 20 percent of the delegate total. If the race stays tight Clinton has a built-in advantage. Those super-delegates are far more likely to support the "establishment" candidate.

To win, Obama has to defeat Clinton decisively. A close primary campaign will hand the nomination to Clinton.

(Message edited by scatmandoo on January 10, 2008)

DM....it is nothing wrong with us having strong opinions for or against any subject....but at some point, we need to leave it at that!

Line by line commentary.....are you serious!!!

Some of us have too much time on their hands....LOL!

And talk about insecurities and hangups.....

.....when I person can not respond to a post in a intelligent manner, but has to resort to negative flames, such as yours........it only shows YOUR lack of character, insecurities and hang ups.

Many posters did not agree with every point I made, nor will I expect them to....but at least they can voice their opposing opinions in a respectful way.

Case in point.....take a look at LaGuy's response versus yours. What a difference...huh?

We are all Adults here and we should be able to voice our opinions. This board comprises of posters of different races, backgrounds and ethnic groups.....and obviously, we will continue to see situations differently, as we all face different challenges in life.

Please don't expect someone to see the world as you do. This is not Don Marco's World!!

Well.....I would love to continue this debate, but I have to finish packing and prepare for my flight back to Asia in the morning....LOL! In the meantime.....take a chill pill DM and I'll keep in mind while in the Land of Paradise..LOL!

BTW......does anyone on this board take their board name seriously......LOL??

Maybe not.....

Continue the good life fellows.....

Mr Pimp
aka "Priew"

In contrast to the Democrats' delegate process, Republicans favor winner-take-all primaries, which tends to lock in the eventual winner much faster. While Mitt Romney keeps trying to put a happy face on his second place finishes, repeated finishes like that will finish a Republican candidate.

Mike Huckabee doesn't seem to be able to have a broad enough appeal to win the big states. Thompson and Paul can hang their spikes up now.

I think the Republican race is really a two-dog race between Giuliani & McCain, with McCain in the driver's seat right now. If John McCain can win out over Huckabee in South Carolina and Michigan, he likely will have the momentum to beat Giuliani in their first real head-to-head contest in Florida.

If Johnny Mac can pull out all three of these victories, he will have such a formidable lead over Rudy G., he will essentially have the nomination in hand before February 5th.

flame?

If I wanted to do that, I woulda called ya a cock loving smurf pimp... but I didn't.

Have a good flight/trip.

I believe if McCain is the nominee, he will be the Bob Dole of 2008, a good loser.

Okay. So McCain will be the Republican's Bob Dole of 2008, the loser of the 1996 election. Who then will be the Democrat's Clinton, i.e., the winner?

C'mon guys . It's all over .

There's no stopping McCain .

I've seen those Diehard movies and he always wins no matter what the odds !!

Just my bit of political punditry.

McCain is still jabbering on about Iraq being a good thing. I get it- he was a POW. Respect. But thats all he talks about. He is NOT what this country needs right now. Clinton is a corporate puppet but who isnt these days. Her husband would be a positive but the Bush and Clinton names are getting old! We need some new blood running this machine. Obama or Edwards would at least put someone in charge who is charismatic and has some diplomacy skills and has new ideas. The economy is still headed down the toilet. The huge problem is going to be the Dems trying to stop the crash and being blamed for stagflation and unemployment. They could be headed for a Jimmy Carter replay. Im a libertarian. I like Ron Paul. He is the only candidate with a sack between his legs. Hillary has one too but thats a different kind. hahha. The IRS is a scam on America. Should be gone. Its like the BCS in college football. But with that said.... The Dems should win this election. The question is can they stop taking lobbyist money and change this country for the better? They talk about change but do little. The Repubs are at least the hawks you know they are but they have went away from small government and have gone big with Bush. If your a repub you have to scratching your head right now. The only thing worse than tax and spend policies are NO TAX and SPEND policies. Thanks W! At least somebody strengthen the dollar around the globe. And by the way ..Obama would be the 3rd black president. Clinton being the first and Bush being the second. Ask me how Bush was the second....

Ron Paul has a lot of baggage that many people are unaware of. Here is some of it:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca

If the link does not work, try www.tnr.com (the New Republic's website) and do a search on Ron Paul or "Angry White Man."

Even though I may agree with some of his libertarian ideas, overall the guy is really out on the fringes. And his chance of winning the Presidency is less than zero, so don't waste your vote.

Ron Paul has been consistent throughout. Unless comments can be traced directly to the horse's mouth I tend to treat this baggage with a ho-hum. As far as wasting one's vote, I don't believe one should cut his conscience for expediency. Plus if you want a Democrat to win, you should welcome a Ron Paul independent run as he will siphon a considerable amount of votes that otherwise would have gone mostly Republican, the Nader effect in reverse.

>>Unless comments can be traced directly to the horse's mouth<<

It strains credulity though to believe he was unaware at least generally of the content of the newsletters that had his name on them. The problem wasn't an isolated comment that might have been snuck into a newsletter; it was a pattern of comments. I can just imagine the outcry if Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama, John McCain, Mit Romney, and so forth, had newsletters with the same sort of trash. AT THE VERY LEAST it shows what types of people he surrounds himself with, certainly relevant to evaluating a potential president (potential president in at least some people's eyes). I don't see why Ron Paul should get a free pass on this.

It may be correct that should he run in the general election as a libertarian or independent Paul would get more Republican votes than votes from Democrats, although this is not at all certain. One shouldn't underestimate the naivety of liberal leaning college kids (something I can attest to from personal experience, LOL).

The new republic and move on are huge spin machines for both parties. The Repubs do not want Paul as a member period. They did the same thing to McCain in the Repub primaries and bashed Kerry in the last presidental election. A la Swift Boat Vets....The question you are asking is ... Is Ron Paul a racist and an anti-semite? Ill look into it but I will not use move on or the new republic to do it. The last election was low blow after low blow and Monica L. wasn't even in the picture.

Actually, the more precise question I am asking, and I am fairly sure I know the answer, is . . . Is Ron Paul a crackpot? The quotations attributed to his newsletter go well beyond racism and anti-semiticism. And as stated earlier, although I find some of what he says attractive, a lot of the rest sounds like what one expects to hear from right-wing nuts holed up in bunkers in Idaho.

A little more on the Ron Paul newsletter. His response.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=264289295584362460&q=ron+paul+newsletter&total=180&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0


and if your really bored.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5547481422995115331&q=zeitgeist&total=2641&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0