hmm

The Dems did not pay enough attention to the changing climate in NC in the last election. While $$ went to many other close Congressional races around the US, the closest was here in NC between Hayes and Kissel. Hayes won by several hundred votes, but would likely have lost if Kissel had received more attention from his own party. NC is more middle of the road than conservative and they do not like what Bush and the neocons have done to our military and our reputation, not to mention the economy.

I am a Dem but this is about being human, not politics.

I can't figure out why she would want to serve another term. The more important number is not her age on election day (72) but her age when she finishes the six year term (78).

Hub is aging too. The time to spend time together is now.

She made a run as president but missed the brass ring; she is too old for VEEP in 2008. W should have picked her in 2000 and that ticket would have cruised to a comfortable win; no Florida / Supreme Court. This term as senator in her own right from her own state is a nice way to finish a fine career.

She could also do something interesting for a couple of years.

I am a Dem but this is about being human, not politics.

I can't figure out why she would want to serve another term. The more important number is not her age on election day (72) but her age when she finishes the six year term (78).

Hub is aging too. The time to spend time together is now.

She made a run as president but missed the brass ring; she is too old for VEEP in 2008. W should have picked her in 2000 and that ticket would have cruised to a comfortable win; no Florida / Supreme Court. This term as senator in her own right from her own state is a nice way to finish a fine career.

She could also do something interesting for a couple of years.

Colin: BTW, I hope you didn't spend more than five minutes on the "marble" thing. Petty of me to even mention such a thing.

Colin: I cannot make it more clear, I have given many reasons as to why I think Hillary will be the next POTUS, and my support will not diminish, and you can take it in the manner it was offered. I like to think I live in the real world, and you prefer Obama, which is ok with me, but as I have stated, IMO, he has a zero chance of winning in 08. Sometime in the future, I think he may stand a good chance, but not in todays political world.

Lylepink -- My concern is actually not trying to win a debate. Rather, it's to elect the Democrat that I think will do the best job of governing the country. Although I will happily support Hillary over any Republican currently running, I prefer Obama, Richardson, and Edwards (roughly in that order) as candidates for some of the reasons that I've articulated above.

Ultimately, I was simply asking you to make a substantive argument regarding why you think Hillary would make a better candidate and president. For whatever reason, you appear unwilling to do that. Fair enough -- you don't have any obligation to do so. But I question the utility in simply stating -- over and over again -- that you think hillary is the best.

Dole is in excellent shape for re-election. North Carolinians don't care that she chaired and how she did with the RSNC. We do, however, care that was instrumental in picking up where senator Helms left off in getting the tobacco buyout past, as well as fighting for conservative judges, voting to enhance America's national security, voting to cut taxes and voting for CAFTA. CAFTA is the Central American Free Trade Agreement-and I know some farmers that are very thankful that's been passed. So I think Dole is in great shape for re-election, especially with Easley wanting a cabnit post instead of this senate seat.

I actually think Hillary would do well on substance in a debate with any candidate. She is very smart and detail oriented. Many Republican senators who believed their party's propaganda about her were astonished by how well prepared and cooperative she has been as a senator. However, she does not come across well on TV and I think a debate might actually reinforce her negatives even as she demonstrates a better command of the substance.

I think any Democrat would beat Giuliani because there would be a third party candidate from the Christian right. He might win the nomination but enough evangelicals will abandon him to guarantee a Democratic victory.

I think William overestimates the level of prejudice that Richardson would face. After all, his name is Bill Richardson not Guilliermo Ricardo. He would be the strongest of the major Democratic candidates. He has the best resume and would make the Democrats competitive in states they haven't carried in a while.

Should Obama win the nomination I think Wesley Clark should be his VP. Two Senators would not be a good ticket. Obama needs a running mate with strong national security credentials. If you eliminate other Senators and consider that an Obama-Richardson ticket with two minorities might be a little risky, Clark is the logical running mate. Picking a governor other than Richardson would present a ticket with virtually no national security experience.

she certainly has a place of honor on awfulplasticsurgery.com.

Cairo - Iyad Allawi, former Iraqi interim premier and leader of a secular party, said the planned Iraqi cabinet reshuffle would not bring hope to the war-ravaged state, adding that under the current political system some factions were 'incited into (adopting) fundamentalism.'

'What we're witnessing now is politically-driven civil infighting, not a religiously-driven sectarian (conflict),' the politician said.
'In addition to terrorism, (there) are certain Iraqi factions that have been incited into (adopting) fundamentalism because of marginalization and displacement.'

McHenry? I've never voted for a Democrat for US Senate before in my life, but if that loud mouth boob was the nominee I'd have no problem voting for Ethridge or McIntyre.

Forgot to add, the marble question is a good example of how numbers can be used to anyones advantage, like polls, it all depends on how the question is asked.

Colin, REALITY CHECK, and others: You folks are much better educated and can win a debate, in your mind, with ease when you are up against an unlettered person like myself. The only thing wrong with your thinking is that your skill in a debate is that you have nothing to offer except the old rule of advice given to a person that is about to cross the river. I am suprised that you haven't asked me a simple question such as--"A box of marbles cost $20.00. If the marbles are valued at $19.00 more than the box. What is the box worth?".--Such a simple ? and most of you will give me an answer like I am mixing apples and organes or value is not consistant with worth. I really do think each of you feel that Hillary will win, but the thought of your friends disagreeing with you is just to much.

Can't believe how many people post under KOZ's name to try and discredit him. But it really discredits the liberal posters. They are actually showing KOZ so much respect by doing shady things to try and hurt his reputation. Are these Democratic dirty tricks? You betcha. Just proves the point that they easily can go that low without any pangs of conscience. It runs in the family. Must be part of that vast left wing conspiracy trying to bring down KOZ.

Hillary will be the best candidate for the Dems. That way, R's won't even have to bother to debate her, she will only want to talk about womens issues, like cooking and cleaning. I cant wait to see what you Libs have to say the day she has her first debate with Rudy, she will not kno what to say, she will think Rudy is not like any other man she has ever seen. She will be right, all she knows now is pansy Lib men like Bubba and Al Gore. What do all you pansy Lib men have to say to that?

Lylepink -- I agree with Reality Check. No one expects you to stop supporting Hillary. We just want you to actually articulate WHY you think she's the best candidate. For example, you could name a policy position that differentiates her from the other Democratic candidates (not that there are any positive ones). Or you could explain what states she could win that other Democrats cannot. Really, just make a cogent argument in her favor.

here's another angle, would dole even run for re-election if easley or moore decided to run? she's never had a truly tough opponent in nc and the one time she did have a tough opponent (2000 presidential primary) she crumbled. just a though.

We aren't asking you to give up your support for Hillary. Just some real reasoned arguments for why as you say she will be the next POTUS. Right now her campaign is looking little more than desperate. Why is she inevitable? Why do you think she has such a strong base of support? What electoral math do you see that will put her over the top? How does she match up against the top Republicans? All we are asking for is a little more than blind faith, some reasoned conclusions.

The Jim Black scandal here, which is only going to get worse when he names other Democrats, will color the next couple of elections. That 87% of voters that believe the Democrats are corrupt are not all Republicans. That figure represents all voters of every party and persuasion. The Democratic party here is in shambles and will be for several elections. You can color North Carolina red for 2008.

Great post tarheel. I prefer definitive stats or polls and then I can draw my own conclusions. What is amazing about those polls is that the Republican candidates should be losing badly and hoping to rebound closer to the election. Instead, with all the negative press on Iraq and Bush they still lead in the polls. Perhaps the state-wide Democratic scandals in North Carolina and New Jersey account for those figures. But the Florida and Pennsylvania results can't be attributed to something like that. Thanks again for some stats instead of rhetoric. The spin on this site can sometimes make you dizzy.

Anglico, is that a North Carolina beach where your head is buried? As part of his plea agreement, Jim Black, Democratic Party Speaker of the House in North Carolina will be naming other corrupt Democrats. Now this week a North Carolina poll shows that 87% of North Carolina voters think the Democratic Party is corrupt and 63% feel Dole is doing a good job. Don't swallow to much sand while you're down there. Oh, now I remember the the Clinton strategy for scandals. Deny, deny, deny. It didn't work with Monica and it won't work in North Carolina. 87% of the voters are on to you.

I have stated time and again, IMO, Hillary will be the next POTUS. At this point in time polls mean very little, no matter how interesting they may be. Frankly I am a little suprised by the way Rudy is polling. McCain is no suprise. On the hidden vote for Hillary, I am taking into account some things women have told me, such as they were actually afraid to voice their support for her in front of their so called friends for fear of being ridiculed. How true this is, I don't know, but on this forum it appears, and is, everyone has to have tens of reasons for my support of Hillary. There is no way to "Prove" I am right or wrong in my opinion of how the 08 election will turn out. I am sticking with Hillary.

Dole is toast in NC. The farmers are turning against her. The military's right behind. And the NC Party of Greed is in a shambles.

State polling data shows she could barely win against even an unnamed candidate. Etheridge could almost certainly take her. So could Miller.

My preference would be for Richard Moore to abandon running against Beverly Perdue for Governor and take on Dole for Senate. That's not likely, but you never know.

Check out our state blog, BlueNC.com, if you want to keep up with what's happening on the ground here.

Hillary is not electable. This article states she has a 53% unfavorable rating in North Carolina. And the following recent polls deliver no good news for her campaign.

New York's Quinnipiac University Polling Institute poll from February 25:
New Jersey
Giuliani(R) 50% - 41% Clinton(D)
McCain(R) 45% - 45% Clinton(D)

New York's Quinnipiac University Pennsylvania and Florida polls from March 7:
Pennsylvania
Giuliani 51% Clinton 40%

Florida
Giuliani 47 Clinton 42

From the Center for Opinion Research at Franklin and Marshall College in Pennsylvania:
Giuliani 53% Clinton 37%
McCain 45% Clinton 41%

Those are startling findings. Consider that 46 percent of Pennsylvania respondents told the pollsters they believed the Republican president was doing a "poor job." Yet, in spite of Bush's ratings being so low the same voters preferred Giuliani and McCain over Hillary Clinton. An astounding sentiment considering everyone is saying the voters will want a change in the White House. That may be true, but it's obvious it won't be Hillary.

I do not live there so I really do not care but if I were to bet and the Dems do it ritht like show how much of our tax dollars are going to the war they could take it from her. She is not really that great of a Senator anyway.

*Hillary is well funded*
Hillary will probably be the best funded in the first quarter but the fact that anyone is near her in fundraising will hurt her in the long run.

*Hillary has the women's vote*
Can you show me the polling data that proves this lylepink? I have been watching the polls closely and haven't seen this. I would doubt Obama would be as close as he is if Hillary had the women's vote in the bag.

*Hillary has the best and most liked pol in the country, Bubba, backing and advising her*
The effect of this is, in fact, yet to be seen. I have heard many people comment that her invoking her husband's name actually weakens Hillary in their eyes. However, I agree she wouldn't be polling so high if it weren't for her having a husband who is far more talented than she.

*Hillary has the hidden vote*
The hidden vote?

*Hillary has the Black and Hispanic vote in the General Election*
Any Democrat has the Black vote in the general. If we really wanted a candidate for the Hispanic vote we would nominate Richardson. If we want a candidate who can't compete in the south, midwest, or west... we ought to nominate Hillary.

*Hillary has the best knowledge for what it takes to be POTUS.*
Richardson has the best knowledge of what it takes to be POTUS. He has been a UN ambassador, actually been an executive, and worked in the White House. Hillary on the other hand slept in the West Wing and has served as a Senator for one term.

I think that is good enough to lose.

To be fair, the coattails effect, as has been discussed here at great length, is traditionally nominal at best. If you look at the data (which I'm sorry I don't have right now, but there was a whole chapter on it in a textbook I had for a class last fall), you can clearly see that "coattails" as commonly perceived do not really work on a national level.

Regardless of the the nominee for President be it Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Giuliani, McCain or Romney or anyone else, the voting patterns "down ticket" will not change mor that maybe a percent.

However, on the state and local level, "coattails" are much more plausible idea. The perception of the apparently unethical Speaker in NC is far more relevant than whther or not Hillary is running. Also of note are ballot measures. Gay marriage and abortion issues will drive the GOP voters to the polls and can boost their candidates numbers 3-5%.

Colin, Blarg and Truth Hunter: That is your opinion. Mine is slightly different. I have picked the POTUS winner, even in some cases before the primary begain,starting in 1948. Going back to January of this year, I even made a prediction of what and who I think will be her choice for VP as well as most, if not all, Cabinet posts. During this time I have been been, for the most part,, the only supporter of Hillary. This is what is great about a forum like this where we all can state our opinion, and try to be reasonable and respectful of those that have opposite views.

Lylepink -- all you really listed were her organizational advantages and some unsubstantiated remarks regarding how she will win certain voting blocks. I'm more interested in the WHY and HOW, which you still haven't provided. Also, to be clear I'm talking about why she makes the best candidate for the GENERAL ELECTION.

Let me list some of her problems, to get the conversation started. First, she was DEAD wrong on the biggest issue of the day -- as her support for the Iraq war has been an unmitigated disaster. Second, she's engaged in some pretty repulsive pandering with her ridiculous stated support for a flag-burning amendment that she then voted against when it came to a vote. Third, her support among women is way overstated. There are nearly as many women who won't vote for her b/c of what happened during the clinton years as there are who will be drawn to hear candidacy. Even worse, the women opposed to her -- married women -- vote more reliably than those attracted to her candidacy (largely unmarried women).

Finally, folks in this country don't actually like the idea of two families controling the country for 20+ years. Don't underestimate the extent to which that will prove problematic for HRC in a general election fight.

Lylepink, Observing your husband being president is not the same as being president.

The only thing Hillary put her hand to while living in the White House.... universal health care coverage.... failed miserably and gave the next Congressional election to the GOP.

While she may be well-funded, others will be too and she is a long way from having the womens vote "wrapped up" nor any of the other segment votes you listed.

IF she is the Dem candidate a thankful GOP will be able to rev up and turn out the vote.

On the subject of CC's post.... Elizabeth Dole is a perfect example of what is wrong with Congress, the Peter Principle writ large.... what ever happened to the GOP push for term limits.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

"Hillary is well funded"
True. But a lot of that is based on the idea that she's the inevitable winner. Hillary's funding advantage will evaporate if she starts to look weak. And some traditional Clinton donors, like David Geffen, don't support her.

"Hillary has the womens vote"
Chuck Schumer did better among women in 2004 than Hillary did in 2006. There's no evidence that women will vote for Hillary more than for any other candidate.

"Hillary has the best and most liked pol in the country, Bubba, backing and advising her"
Thus enforcing the effect that she'd riding Bill's coattails. And that hasn't done much for her so far.

"Hillary has the hidden vote"
The what?

"Hillary has the Black and Hispanic vote in the General Election"
Yes, because she's the Democrat. The Democrat always gets the black and Hispanic vote in the general election. Obama, Edwards, etc. would get it also.

"Hillary has the best knowledge for what it takes to be POTUS."
Why? Because she's married to a former president? I've never heard anyone say Nancy Reagan or Laura Bush would make a good president. (Excuse me, POTUS).

The thing is, I never really notice Elizabeth Dole. She has the face time of Mike DeWine.

Colin and Clyde: I did not say Hillary would win the NC primary. I have stated many times, IMHO, Hillary will be the next POTUS, and here are a few reasons why. Hillary is well funded=Hillary has the womens vote=Hillary has the best and most liked pol in the country, Bubba, backing and advising her=Hillary has the hidden vote=Hillary has the Black and Hispanic vote in the General Election=Hillary has the best knowledge for what it takes to be POTUS. I think that is good enough to win.

I live in North Carolina and I will gladly vote against her. She has been coasting under the radar since she was elected hoping nobody woud notice that she spends more time working for the party than the people who sent her to Washington. Perhaps she would like to say a few words on how we are going to treat all the mentally and physically wounded returning from Iraq and tell us why we send the same people back over and over again, even the wounded ones. I can't get a straight answer from her form letters.

Vindication, vindication. I posted on the scandal involving Jim Black, state Democratic Party Speaker of the House in North Carolina a month ago and was ridiculed by Dems for bringing up insignificant state scandals. I made the point that major state scandals affect voting more than national scandals and this would help Elizabeth Dole. Now this week a North Carolina poll shows that 87% of North Carolina voters think the Democratic Party is corrupt and 63% feel Dole is doing a good job. The people of North Carolina will be voting for or against Senator Dole, not people posting on this site (unless you're from North Carolina, of course). It's what they think that counts. Anyone who thinks its insignificant when 87% of state voters think the Democratic party is corrupt is just totally out of touch with reality.

Vindication, vindication. I posted on the scandal involving Jim Black, state Democratic Party Speaker of the House in North Carolina a month ago and was ridiculed by Dems for bringing up insignificant state scandals. I made the point that major state scandals affect voting more than national scandals and this would help Elizabeth Dole. Now this week a North Carolina poll shows that 87% of North Carolina voters think the Democratic Party is corrupt and 63% feel Dole is doing a good job. The people of North Carolina will be voting for or against Senator Dole, not people posting on this site (unless you're from North Carolina, of course). It's what they think that counts. Anyone who thinks its insignificant when 87% of state voters think the Democratic party is corrupt is just totally out of touch with reality.

The last time Elizabeth Dole had an original thought was the day Bob came home with a bottle of Viagra. I leave it to you to figure out what that thought was.

I am Sick of all you Libs mocking me and my American beliefs. For the record, I have never drunk Blood... not even Lib blood. I would not be sorry to see a Lib bleeding though... just like Libs are not sorry to see our heroes bleeding in Iraq. At least we are showing the rest of the world what it means to mess with the U.S. and any soldier will tell you, blood before dishonor. Pres. Bush is our president, thank God, and he will not be afraid to spill some blood to protect Freedom. Freedom... what Iraqi's have now, thank's to our brave men in Iraq. Now, on to Iran! Then, when the first McDonalds is built in Tehran, and Mammod Whatever his name is is forced to shave off his beard on camera with an Uncle Sam razor, I guess all you Libs will...

blame Bush.

'Before all the votes are counted, I will track him down and drink his blood.'

Your true nature, revealed. Although it was always pretty obvious to those of us who do not walk by night...

The comment was made that Easley would struggle in the Senate because he'd have to toe the party line all the time. I don't think thats right. Loose cannons can endear themselves to their state, and Dems will accept someone who is not a guarenteed vote provided they win (e.g. Nelson, Casey, Webb)

Easley doesn't seem to want a Senate seat, is he quiting politics in 2008? Because shifting to the Senate is the logical place for him. But maybe like George Allen he prefers to actually "do things" (as WP noted, the excellent Governor became a disinterested Senator).

I think he would have a really good shot of winning, particularly if the national climate remains so Dem loaded. Perhaps he's betting that Clinton will win the nomination, and so Dems will suffer down the ticket.

Is Easley a potential VP pick for any of the candidates?

there is no way ANY Dem can win ANY primary. Before all the votes are counted, I will track him down and drink his blood.

So Lyle, Obama can't win the primary in NC - a state with a large black vote - but your girl Hillary can? ("IYHO"?) I hate to tell ya, but there's even less support in the North Carolina Democratic Party for a Yankee former Goldwater Girl whose last name is Clinton than there is for a black candidate. Ain't NO way Hillary will be the next "POTUS," "IMHO."

lylepink -- Yes, I KNOW you don't think Obama can win and that Hillary is god. What you NEVER seem to explain is WHY you think either of those things. Obama inspires passion in people -- Hillary does not. There's not a state that Hillary can compete in that Obama wouldn't win just as handidly. In contrast, Obama can campaign in all kinds of states that Hillary can't even show her face in.

Hillary MAY win the nomination b/c she has more money and organization than anyone else, but I have yet to hear any argument by your as to why she'd make a better general election candidate. I've asked you to spell it out before, but all you ever say is that you think she's the best because....she's great. Sorry, that really doesn't cut it.

Here's hoping you respond more substantively this time.

Jeez, Gonzalez said, 'mistakes were made' recalling to mind none other than Richard Nixon and Watergate. I think his nixonian slip is showing...

What's funny about the iteration in the passive voice is that it makes it sound like the mistakes made themselves, not that someone is taking responsibility for them, god forbid. 'We made mistakes' would be admitting you made mistakes. But they won't do that.

Colin: I can see no way for Obama to win the primary. Rudy is a little suprising in the early polling and McCain keeps digging the hole deeper on what seems a daily basis. The repubs are as divided as I have ever seen them.

JD: Elections are about more than counting votes and candidate personalities.

Even if they don't follow the thread CC started, most of the posters' topics fit into how we choose to govern ourselves - which is what the election decides.

If you don't get that, maybe your attention would be better served elsewhere.

And don't give credit to Boy Wonderless, he throws such a variety into a single post that it invaribaly gets somebody engaging him in a topic which is "off topic." But, his need for attention gets met. For him to complain, is simple hypocrisy, or his Control Freak streak at work.

I wish someone in the Democratic Party would start promoting David Price, the sitting Congressman from Durham, for Dole's post. He is a serious, intelligent, thoughtful, pro-business Dem.

The war is growing very unpopular here. I realized how much so today when the "good ole boy" carpenter (he's got a Confederate flag on his pickup) working on my house in rural NC told me he'd take his 20 year old son, who has already served one tour in Iraq, to Canada before he'd let him be sent back. He said that Bush was a sorry joke who should be impeached. I'd say this is an indication of how poorly the GOP will fare here in 2008.

Dole is spooky looking... grossa mossa... yuck... can you reverse a facelift? Rudy Giuliani in drag -- http://www.solidpolitics.com -- looks better than Liddy.

"In before the Off Topic retarded spam posts on social security, Walter Reed, Iraq, the deficit and the US attorney firings are posted. Not to mentioned che's "uncensored socialist news."

SERIOUSLY, are half the people on this site A.D.D.?

If you cant think of something to post about the topic or about 2008 election politics, don't post some off topic drivel.

Just refrain from posting. Thanks."

********************8

William, you are spot on. I wish more people would listen.

'If you cant think of something to post about the topic or about 2008 election politics, don't post some off topic drivel.'

I know you cons hate the constitution but I will defend my first amendment rights to the death.

I remember plenty of rightwingers claiming that 2006 wasn't going to be bad for them. Looks like they are ready to do more of the same for 2008. I guess these jokers will never realize that being in delusional denial makes you part of the problem, not part of the solution. Please remain stubbornly hyperpartisan as so far that has done wonders for removing senators like Elizabeth Dole from office. Just ask George Allen and Rick Santorum. No state is safe for a Republican in today's anti-GOP climate. To make things worse, the middle is firmly behind the left thanks to Bush and the Iraq war. And all the right seems to be interested in is continuing to dig their own graves. Pigheaded partisanism is only going to make things worse and worse for the conservatives.

Obama can WIN NC, so I don't think the down-ticket projections folks are making are necessarily correct at all.

Much like Virginia, NC isn't nearly as conservative as it used to be. If the Democratic ticket has two forward-looking, pragmatic, consensus-seeking candidates -- think Obama/Clark -- I think the GOP will have to fight hard to win the state. Remember, lots of states are "reliably" red or blue...till they're not. I have a feeling that 2008 is going to be another 'change' election. If that's true, then some of the traditional voting patterns will really change.

Food for thought -- who wins North Carolina if Obama runs agains Guliani? Under that scenario there's no conservative in the race at all, but the GOP candidate is still a big supporter of an even more unpopoular war. At worst I say that race is even money in favor of Obama. If a third-party christian right candidate runs, then I think the odds are even better for the Dems.

I notice a few have been bringing Hillary into this discussion. The Sen. Dole issue on "Meet the Press" cannot be put aside so easely. IMHO, Hillary will be the next POTUS and I will continue to give her all the support I can. For those that trash Hillary, tells me the fear they have of her. The Iraq situation will play a major role in 2008 depending on how it is going a couple of months before the election.

Prior to living in L.A., I spent a pleasant time in the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill area of NC, the Research Trinagle locale.

North Carolina has benefited from strong state government, but, of late, the performances of the senators has been less than revolutionary.

Liddy Dole had a lot of general popularity. She was well liked, but also regarded as somewhat absent. I don't think she is exceptionally vulnerable -- unless given a challenge by Gov. Mike Easley.

It would be Easley's race to lose. And I would like to see the governor become a national figure. Educated at Chapel Hill and NC Central Law -- although he graduated Summa Cum Laud from Chapel Hill, he took a far less traditional route -- Easely is the type of figure sorely lacking in our Harvard-Yale obsessed celebrity-driven political culture.

As far as the mention of Democrats' problems in NC -- please, never will the GOP come close to losing NC to Hillary. That is funny.

The GOP candidate would need to be caught in lovenest with Brittany and K-Fed while smoking hash and necking with Barbara Streisand before the state could tip to Madame Hillary.

And NC, culturally, is way more progressive than commonly thought, with its high population of PHDs in Research Triangle. But these inferior candidates the Democrats keep mounting have no chance there -- Hillary is as divisive as W. is. She won't play outside her narrow coastal band, and even there Giuliani will make NJ and PA impossible dreams.

For being a supposed Libertarian, William certainly has a Control Freak streak.

Regards,

dirtysw - sounds like the dems ARE seven times as corrupt.

so easy.

For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.takingaimradio.info
www.onlinejournal.com

http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/

March 13, 2007 -- The actual reason Halliburton and its chairman David Lesar are moving their corporate digs to Dubai is that the UAE's lax laws on corporate record keeping and the opaqueness of business transactions in the emirates will allow the firm to avoid responding to congressional subpoenas for its scandalous war profiteering in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other locations. A source with extensive ties in Dubai also reports that after leaving office, Dick Cheney will be spending "a lot of time in Dubai." WMR was told that Cheney will likely start looking for property in the emirate -- there are a number of highly-secured gated communities springing up in Dubai, which is fast becoming the "Hong Kong" of the Middle East.

Halliburton will also be able to avoid paying U.S. corporate taxes as a UAE-headquartered corporation.

william, can you believe the weather we are having? Please reply in 2000 words or more and STICK TO THE TOPIC!

not all who wander are lost.

She may be vulnerable, but that doesn't mean she'll be gone in '08. She's been considered somewhat of an institution there for some time. In addition, NC is what political scientists would call a traditionalist state as it's one of the few southern states with two-party competition (though it leans Democratic at the state and local levels overall and Republican at the federal level).

Would Democrats be able to field a candidate? Probably not. Depends on how the speaker's ethical lapses play out (he recently entered an Alford plea on bribery and obstruction of justice charges in state court and resigned from the legislature). Other Dems have been caught in some corruption too and got sent to prison in the last few years.

Plus Erskine Bowles got the job he really wanted -- president of the consolidated UNC system. So he's not around for '08.

Bottom line, I don't see Dole going anywhere despite her flaws. She'd have to screw up really badly to be rejected by Tar Heel voters (not Tarheel, Cilliza; it's two words!).

And whoever suggested McHenry as a likely successor to Dole in '08, please get off that crack. Tattoo ain't never run nothin' but his mouth.

William: you're right; I forgot about down ticket effects. What if Obama teams with Richardson or taps Warner? I liked Warner and was disappointed when he dropped out. Don't know enough about Richardson to have an opinion.

William: thanks for your excellent comments on NC politics. I'm going to stick with my position that the majority of the happy R senators at the end of 2008 are either going to be (a) newly elected or (b) re-elected in 2006. The drum beat of really bad news just keeps coming. Political profiling (http://www.epluribusmedia.org/columns/2007/20070212_political_profiling.html) is a new low in American politics.

Judge, you may be right that 2008 will be even worse for the GOP than 2006.

However, right now, if I had to guess the political climate of the 2008 election season, I would guess that it will be tilted in the Dems' favor, but not as much as 06.

Of course, this early, it is impossible to tell, or even to make a good guess.

In March 2005, Republicans were celebrating their victory and predicted the demise of the Dems as a national party.

Obviously, that didn't come to pass.

I think how well the Dems do in 08 will depend a LOT on their presidential nominee.

If it is Clinton or Obama, I expect the Dems will suffer devastation in not only the presidential race but in crucial "down ticket" races as well.

Edwards or Biden won't have coattails, but won't have an adverse effect on the down ticket races either. Their effect would be somewhat neutral, in my opinion.

Richardson would have a positive effect in districts out West and in FL that have a significant Hispanic population.

But he would cause some harm in districts like Shuler's in NC, and Marshall's and Barrow's in GA, and other areas in the South and West where the people are mostly white rural conservatives.

Unfortunately for Dems, Sweitzer, Warner, Bayh and Brdesen aren't running. Not only would they easily win, they would have coattails as well.

The Dem field left is pretty weak. I think Richardson is the strongest candidate, considering his resume and experience, and moderate appeal.

The illegal immigration issue will not be a factor if the Republican is pro-amnesty too, which all the 5 frontrunners are.

Richardson, I think, could take enough SouthWestern states to win, and possibly OH as well.

So he is electable, but even if he won, would probably cause some Dems in the South or some places out West to lose their seats.

Edwards would not have a negative effect on Southern congressional races for Dems, but he will have a hard time winning the presidency, considering how he has moved far to the left since 2004 and how limited his experience is.

"SERIOUSLY, are half the people on this site A.D.D.?"

You definitely seem to be william.

not that there's a problem with that necessarily but ...dude, you might want to cut back on the caffeine a little. or is it just that your meds kick in in the afternoon? :)

As for Dole, I don't think she's that vulnerable. NC is a red state, and she received an "A" rating from the National Rifle Association in 2003, got a rating of 100 percent from the Gun Owners of America in 2005, and she earned a 100 percent rating from the anti-abortion National Right to Life Committee. ... Things that her constituents care about.

Sen. Dole was mentioned on "The Fix" by me and others only a few days ago, and I think her appearance on the Russert show will make her appear to be different from what most people think. Anyone running against her, IMO, will run the tapes of her and will be as suprised as I was to see a lady that is highly respected in many areas, make an absolute fool of herself. She is in a pretty "Red State", which should help, but I have my doubts.

My apologies. I misunderstood that line.

Dan W, my post lamenting how these threads veer off topic was not directed at you.

That's why I wrote "IN BEFORE the off topic posts."

I wouldn't have written that if there was already an O.T. post on the thread, would I?

My post was directed at Che and others who take these threads off topic.

In fact, Che has already posted some of his usual tripe on this thread.

I wonder if he realizes that no one actually reads his posts?

Elizabeth Dole is FAr from an "icon" in NC, as you wrote in your article.

Personally I would rather see someone more inspiring, solidly conservative, and energetic as my senator, someone more like James DeMint or david Vitter for example.

But NC is a conservative state, and voters are likely to prefer her to any Dem, even if they don't particularly like her.

Most Southern states prefer to elect GOP Senators, but don't mind electing Democratic governors.

The opposite was true of New England, at least until recently.

Easley is probably the only person who could give her a serious challenge, but I still doubt he would win. He was a decent governor, but North Carolinians realize that if he is elected to the Senate, he will have to side with Dems on most issues, like other Southern Dem senators.

I think Dole is safe, especially since there is no strong candidate running against her.

If she opted not to run again, then the Dems would stand a better chance of taking the seat.

I'd say the strongest GOP candidate would be Rep. Patrick McHenry (NC - 10.)

Walter Jones would have been a likely choice, but with his recent anti-war antics, he's probably doomed his own chances at being the GOP senate candidate.

Rep. Sue Myrick wants the seat badly but no one really likes her.

As for the Dems, Mike McIntyre would be able to present a strong challenge for the seat.

However, considering how conservative NC is, I'd say the Republican candidate has an inherent advantage.

William: at least you beat che.

CC seems to have it well in hand when he says "While the polls paint differing picture of Dole's vulnerability, they both agree that the climate in which she is running is an extremely difficult one for her party. The difference between the two polls is that van Lohuizen's survey argues that Dole is largely immune to the toxic political atmosphere while the Democratic one postulates that she is being weighed down by it."

If things keep going South re-election will be tough for R's all over. Expect viable D candidates to start crawling out of the woodwork in NC. Unfortunately for the R's, they may have had it easy in 2006 compared to what looks like the perfect storm of 2008.

William, yes I think I am A.D.D. And speaking as someone who will take the post off topic if I want, let me state a few things.

1. Its a public forum. While I generally try to stick to topic, sometimes the topic naturally evolves into something else.

2. Some of Chris' recent topics don't merit more than a couple inches of discussion.

3. I actually like talking to some of the people on this forum about some of the topics you specifically mentioned above.

4. Am I responding to the REAL William?

For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.takingaimradio.info
www.onlinejournal.com

http://www.gregpalast.com/bushs-new-us-attorney-a-criminal/

Bush's New US Attorney a Criminal?
Published March 7th, 2007 in Articles

BBC Television had exposed 2004 voter attack scheme by appointee Griffin, a Rove aide.
Black soldiers and the homeless targeted.
by Greg Palast

There's only one thing worse than sacking an honest prosecutor. That's replacing an honest prosecutor with a criminal.

There was one big hoohah in Washington yesterday as House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers pulled down the pants on George Bush's firing of US Attorneys to expose a scheme to punish prosecutors who wouldn't bend to political pressure.

griffin-caging.pngBut the Committee missed a big one: Timothy Griffin, Karl Rove's assistant, the President's pick as US Attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Griffin, according to BBC Television, was the hidden hand behind a scheme to wipe out the voting rights of 70,000 citizens prior to the 2004 election.

Key voters on Griffin's hit list: Black soldiers and homeless men and women. Nice guy, eh? Naughty or nice, however, is not the issue. Targeting voters where race is a factor is a felony crime under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

In October 2004, our investigations team at BBC Newsnight received a series of astonishing emails from Mr. Griffin, then Research Director for the Republican National Committee. He didn't mean to send them to us. They were highly confidential memos meant only for RNC honchos.

However, Griffin made a wee mistake. Instead of sending the emails -- potential evidence of a crime -- to email addresses ending with the domain name "@GeorgeWBush.com" he sent them to "@GeorgeWBush.ORG." A website run by prankster John Wooden who owns "GeorgeWBush.org." When Wooden got the treasure trove of Rove-ian ravings, he sent them to us.

And we dug in, decoding, and mapping the voters on what Griffin called, "Caging" lists, spreadsheets with 70,000 names of voters marked for challenge. Overwhelmingly, these were Black and Hispanic voters from Democratic precincts.

tim-griffin.jpgThe Griffin scheme was sickly brilliant. We learned that the RNC sent first-class letters to new voters in minority precincts marked, "Do not forward." Several sheets contained nothing but soldiers, other sheets, homeless shelters. Targets included the Jacksonville Naval Air Station in Florida and that city's State Street Rescue Mission. Another target, Edward Waters College, a school for African-Americans.

If these voters were not currently at their home voting address, they were tagged as "suspect" and their registration wiped out or their ballot challenged and not counted. Of course, these 'cages' captured thousands of students, the homeless and those in the military though they are legitimate voters.
We telephoned those on the hit list, including one Randall Prausa. His wife admitted he wasn't living at his voting address: Randall was a soldier shipped overseas.

Randall and other soldiers like him who sent in absentee ballots, when challenged, would lose their vote. And they wouldn't even know it.

And by the way, it's not illegal for soldiers to vote from overseas -- even if they're Black.

But it is illegal to challenge voters en masse where race is an element in the targeting. So several lawyers told us, including Ralph Neas, famed civil rights attorney with People for the American Way.

Griffin himself ducked our cameras, but his RNC team tried to sell us the notion that the caging sheets were, in fact, not illegal voter hit lists, but a roster of donors to the Bush-Cheney reelection campaign. Republican donors at homeless shelters?

Over the past weeks, Griffin has said he would step down if he had to face Congressional confirmation. However, the President appointed Griffin to the law enforcement post using an odd little provision of the USA Patriot Act that could allow Griffin to skip Congressional questioning altogether.

Therefore, I have a suggestion for Judiciary members. Voting law expert Neas will be testifying today before Conyers' Committee on the topic of illegal voter "disenfranchisement" -- the fancy word for stealing elections by denying voters' civil rights.

Maybe Conyers should hold a line-up of suspected vote thieves and let Neas identify the perpetrators. That should be easy in the case of the Caging List Criminal. He'd only have to look for the guy wearing a new shiny lawman's badge.
******

Read the full story, "Caging Lists: Great White Republicans Take Voters Captive" in Greg Palast's Armed Madhouse: Sordid Secrets and Strange Tales from a White House Gone Wild. The new edition, with a new chapter on Theft of the Election, will be released April 24th (by Penguin/Plume in paperback).

While Dole's utter failure at the RSCC may cause her to decline to run for reelection (since she will probably never hold a leadership position again in the Senate), most NCians do not know or care that she headed the RSCC. Also, I'm skeptical that her numbers are that bad, if 49% say she's doing good or excellent. Throw in the benefits of incumbency and NC's leanings in an election year, and I'd say it's still Dole's race to lose.

Also, I'm not sure what types of coattails Democratic presidential candidates will have in NC. Obviously, if someone like Richardson turns out to be strong, he could. I am skeptical of Edwards, since he's disliked by many NCians. Biden tends to play well in the South, so he might have the best shot among Democratic presidential contenders to have a coattails effect in the South/Mid-Atlantic.

In before the Off Topic retarded spam posts on social security, Walter Reed, Iraq, the deficit and the US attorney firings are posted. Not to mentioned che's "uncensored socialist news."

SERIOUSLY, are half the people on this site A.D.D.?

If you cant think of something to post about the topic or about 2008 election politics, don't post some off topic drivel.

Just refrain from posting. Thanks.

'Sixty-four percent of the sample viewed Dole favorably while just 26 percent saw her in an unfavorable light'

'49 percent of the sample rated Dole's performance as a senator as either "excellent" or "good" while 46 percent said it was "fair" or "poor."'

Could it be that the Repubs are considering "Fair" performance to be positive while Dems consider "Fair" to be negative?

Please don't combine 2 categories into a single number so I can make my own interpretations.

'26% saw her in an unfavorable light' and '23% would definately vote against her' are statistically similar.

Seems these two polls are comparing apples and oranges.