Where is George W. Bush on the list of Pariah Endorsements?

I have to wonder why the only report that the other important side of the Kennedy family, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Kerry Kennedy, have endorsed Hillary Clinton, was in the Los Angeles Times today, "Kennedys for Clinton".

gpm3253 asks What can Obama give us that we can't get with Hilary?
*****************************************
You're kidding, right? It is true that their policies are similar. So let me help here by pasting some of Caoline Kennedy's article that adresses your question:
"Most of us would prefer to base our voting decision on policy differences. However, the candidates' goals are similar. They have all laid out detailed plans on everything from strengthening our middle class to investing in early childhood education. So qualities of leadership, character and judgment play a larger role than usual.

Senator Obama has demonstrated these qualities throughout his more than two decades of public service, not just in the United States Senate but in Illinois, where he helped turn around struggling communities, taught constitutional law and was an elected state official for eight years. And Senator Obama is showing the same qualities today. He has built a movement that is changing the face of politics in this country, and he has demonstrated a special gift for inspiring young people -- known for a willingness to volunteer, but an aversion to politics -- to become engaged in the political process.

I want a president who understands that his responsibility is to articulate a vision and encourage others to achieve it; who holds himself, and those around him, to the highest ethical standards; who appeals to the hopes of those who still believe in the American Dream, and those around the world who still believe in the American ideal; and who can lift our spirits, and make us believe again that our country needs every one of us to get involved."
Anyone writing stuff like this about Hillary OR Bill?

If Hillary and the local chapter of NOW are hopping mad, just think how Ted Kennedy's 27-or-so nephews, nieces, children, and grandchildren (many of whom have devoted their lives to public service) must be feeling. Forty-odd years and Unca Teddy has never mentored one of them into a position of national prominence. Now, some whippersnapper from Chicago? Hm ... Chicago.

Anyway, something's not quite right with this picture. Maybe Ted fears "the curse" when it comes to his own kin. On the other hand, the curse arguably could be applied to our young Mr. O as well.

I suspect there is some greater political calculus in this choice. Some complex function of multiple variables: personal enmity against the Clintons; fear that the Democratic party was about to burst into a flaming mass of race hatred, right before the country's eyes; belief that Hlllary's high negatives make her a non-starter in November; an old man's sense of urgency to do something big before it's all over.

I think that the Kennedy endorsements, much like most endorsements, mean hardly anything. The more important news that I got out of it was that people had to be turned away from attending the announcement. Obama filled the American University's Bender Arena and the overflow area with estimates in the 7000 range. From TV news reports I saw, while there appeared to be a good number of adults (both white and African American) attending, there was also a large number of students. The people they interviewed were either students or idealists of the 60's (with their kids). I have not, at least at this point, bought into the 2nd coming of JFK thing, but apparently there are many who have. The caveat is that this was the first major campaign event in the region leading up to the Feb. 12 primaries in the DC area and DC is about as blue a place as there is. All that said, I think that it is great that people, especially young people, appear to be getting involved politically. I just hope that Obama can come up with the policies to justify this level of excitement.

I'm not sure we needed to break this down into a hierarchy of endorsements, but I will say this: Kennedy's endorsement matters. Sure, one could probably make the case that this will only serve to be of marginal significance for Obama, and that most people are not swayed by D.C. regulars. But in a race this tight, it's time for those of us that have been on the margins to align with a candidate.Furthermore, Ted Kennedy has proven three very important things: firstly, that the Clintons do not have absolute control over the Democratic party apparatus; secondly, that Ted Kennedy truly believes in the faculties of this junior senator from Illinois; and ultimately, the left-wing of the Democratic party --as embodied by Sen. Kennedy-- may successfully seize control of this election. It is somewhat ironic that Barack Obama and the truly progressive {more leftist} wing of the party has become the mainstream, more electable wing, thus seizing the reins from the Clintonian centrists. Overall, this endorsement matters to real political junkies who might have been reluctant to follow Obama and his movement. Validation, if you will.

P.S. I challenge any left-leaning person on this blog to refute Sen. Edward Kennedy's proven commitment to the progressive ideals of working-class, and plain old optimistic, Americans everwhere. This guy has been defending you before it was fashionable.

Due respect.

New Yorkers for Obama.

The Kennedy endorsement comes with the much coveted SUPERDELEGATES.......thats why it's important!

I guess it's interesting to me,

that the killers of JFK, and Bobby, are also affiliated with the same crowd that have been running Washington D.C., since 1963....

Bay of Pigs, Cubanos, MAFIA, drugs, monied, Zapata OIL, Texas, WaterGate, IRAN CONTRA, Chile, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama/Noriega, IRAQ/Saddam Hussein...

the same players, still playing the same game.

Otto Reich, Elliot Abrams, Woolsey, Rumsfeld, Cheney, George H.W. Bush....

Obama talks about not bringing up the old days.

He has no clue that the old days are the same players that are running IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN, and about to try and run the table on Chavez.

it takes more than a pretty smile, when you go fishing in West Virginia....got to be able to deliver the goods...

and that takes action, not talk.

.

Chris, you are being a little shortsighted. If you want to refer to an "original first family" of American politics, it is probably the Adams family of Massachusetts.

The Fix, I think, has given us the best analysis of endorsements on the 'net. To Chris's take on Kennedy's, I'd like to add that it may help with older Dems, which is excellent, because Obama tends to attract younger voters.

Add the "niche" endorsement - for locally or regionally notable representatives of various interest groups. Examples would be the latino activist, union leader, religious leader endorsements that do not attain "symbolic" status, but may be useful in local or regional arenas. How effective they are is of course open to question, but they do generate free press.

Kennedy detractors on this thread, who'd never vote for Obama, have no dog in his hunt. So, while their opinions offer insight into their bias against our esteemed Teddy, their judgment of his endorsement has no relevance or validity.

While interesting that the Kennedy endorsement is seen as the "passing of the mantle", no one is asking exactly what is involved in that mantle? What makes up that mantle? Yes JFK was inspiring - but he also ushered in the era of the Best and The Brightest who led us deeper into that SE Asian jungle, spurred on by his clarion call of "ask not what your country can do for you.. ." And no one addresses exactly what that entails? Does this mean that we will, yet again, send another generation of our young to fight an endless war, demanding their allegiance but ignoring their questions? Does this mean that we will continue the legacy of believing that government has all the answers and we as citizens have no right to demand truth from our public servants? JFK's death, Bobby's death - these were moments of tragedy that marked the boomer generation. We will always look at them and wonder, "what could have been. . ." But that doesn't mean that we cannot now look back and say that just maybe on some things they were off the mark. Inspiration is a wonderful thing - hope is a wonderful necessity for the human soul, but until we work to make dreams reality, hope is nothing more than the panacea handed out by few to the many. When I hear Obama speak, I applaud his sermons of hope - and then I ask, "Where's the beef?" I want more than someone to inspire me, I want someone who will lead - lead all of us.

gbooksdc wrote:
"Opymist: The song "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald" has/had nothing to do with Sen. Kennedy. Ted Kennedy's full name is Edward Moore Kennedy. His brother's middle name was Fitzgerald. The Edmund Fitzgerald was a lake freighter that sank suddenly during a gale storm on Lake Superior in 1975. Gordon Lightfoot wrote his song memorializing the 29 crewmen who died in 1976."

We both know the song. I was responding to Claudia's comment about JudgeCrater's use of the Edmund Fitzgerald lyrics on the topic of shrinking water levels in the Great Lakes. This had nothing to do with Ted Kennedy.

oh, I see the antichrist is spreading his unholiness across the nation....

trying to send his seed into the ears of innocent listeners... particularly rural unschooled listeners...

.

I see nothing that contradicts the general rule that endorsements mean little. Like all 'general rules' of partisan politics, it is true in a huge majority of cases, but not all, so the Ted Kennedy endorsement might be different, and significantly helpful. I really doubt it.

I'm a Democrat, have always voted for the Democratic candidate for President, and have voted in every Democratic presidential primary since I got the vote. Over the years I have noted that Ted Kennedy has done significant work in the Senate. As far as Ted Kennedy and presidential politics, this is my reaction to him: Ted Kennedy is no Jack Kennedy. Ted Kennedy is no Bobby Kennedy. Ted Kennedy wanted to be President, but never stood a chance in heck of making it, for obvious reasons which would not be useful to recount here.

Having Ted Kennedy and his endorsement fill up valuable news time in the week before Super Tuesday doesn't help Barack Obama as much as it hurts him, for the following reason. Voters will choose a candidate they know and mildly dislike over one they don't know. Most voters, even primary voters, know little about Mr. Obama. If all voters know about Obama is that Ted Kennedy endorsed him, that's not good for him, it's bad.

I will most certainly vote for the Democratic candidate this November, whomever it turns out to be. I don't like Hillary Clinton, I really don't like her, but I'm like most voters, and disliking her won't change my vote.

One last thing. The Democratic (and Republican) candidate for president will be the candidate who spends 20 hours a day (4 hours for sleep) hammering their opposition, mostly not in a nice way. Hillary Clinton has the ability to do this, and noone is sure if Barack Obama has the same ability. This explains the odds favoring Clinton, real odds, the odds that determine who makes money betting on the outcome of the nominating process.

Doug Kahn

Excellent Analysis Chris - this analysis deserves further discussion and consideration in the future - these categories are excellent, they can be refined, expanded and re-analyzed.

OK one variation - which endorsement is more significant: Caroline Kennedy or Ted Kennedy?

My first guess would be Caroline.

look for the invasion of Venezuela,

in 18 days....it will fail, there will be an intercession...and a "rebel leader," will be removed permanently.

ccjenkins posted:

"Mark my words, if Obama gets the Democratic nomination, there will be a Kennedy somewhere ready for his cabinet..."

That would be Ted. And it would be the liquor cabinet.

I typically vote Democratic, and I lived in Massachusetts for 15 years. Trust me, Ted is far from beloved even in his home state.

singersol you make good points. I'd like to point out however that it was the abject failure of LBJ in Vietnam that led to the election of Nixon and the dawn of the Republican era. It is the abject failure of George W. Bush that will end it. Bush has destroyed the Republican party in ways that are still not clear and will be felt for decades. Thats why a guy like Obama has a chance. If this was 92 id agree with you completely but this is 2008 and the times are a changin.

I think you're underestimating the power of state-specific, non-statewide endorsements. Local establishment politicians are the heads of their local turnout machines. Those local activists and operatives will get out the vote in their precincts for the candidate their political club (that is, their political club chair) is supporting.

A candidate may seem to have momentum, but what will make the difference on election day is the ground operation. Look at what happened in New Hampshire.

The Kennedy endorsement can help Obama if it holds off Clinton's aura of inevitability long enough to draw in local establishment politicians who haven't decided yet. But the war of the political dynasties won't make a difference on its own.

The Kennedy wing of the Democratic Party has held sway here in Michigan since the 1970s. Ted Kennedy's campaign against Jimmy Carter pitted the teachers' union against the UAW -- and ended my career in active Democratic politics. Ever since then, it was the same coalition against the same coalition in primary politics. Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Obama Barack is a very real healing moment in the schism of the Democratic Party here -- between the old guard, union liberals and the now more pragmatic general majority of Democrats who vote the ticket but didn't work the polls. My old friend and mentor, Betty Howe, ran the Kennedy campaign against Carter in the congressional district caucus against me. I lost and she went on to become state party chairman. I went on to voting the ticket. Sooner or later, I knew, the Kennedy wing would fade away. I believe that Hillary Clinton's campaign has been a meaningful part of this critical transition but, as the primaries reach their conclusion, will prove to be just that -- fodder of the past against which the future needed to be tested and bested. I don't want to say to Betty Howe, I knew better 20 years ago -- but I think I did without knowing that politics inevitably moves with the generations. God bless her soul and heart.

The announcement by Ted Kennedy and Caroline Kennedy, is something that makes me wonder... Why would the Kennedy's be so interested in Obama? It sounds like a free ticket to get a Kennedy back in the White House. Maybe the ring of an Obama/Kennedy ticket excites them. Mark my words, if Obama gets the Democratic nomination, there will be a Kennedy somewhere ready for his cabinet...

The announcement by Ted Kennedy and Caroline Kennedy, is something that makes me wonder... Why would the Kennedy's be so interested in Obama? It sounds like a free ticket to get a Kennedy back in the White House. Maybe the ring of an Obama/Kennedy ticket excites them. Mark my words, if Obama gets the Democratic nomination, there will be a Kennedy somewhere ready for his cabinet...

So Ted Kennedy endorses Obama. Big deal. These effete northern liberal Democrats in the media (Mike Barnicle, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann) and in politics who are trying to make Bill Clinton into "the story" in order to hurt Hillary are the ones who constantly drive the Democratic Party toward political suicide.

I am 58 years old. In my whole life, only one Democrat has been elected president twice. That is Bill Clinton. He knows something about winning that none of these others seem to get. They all try to cut him down because they each think that they are smarter than he is. But they are not. If they were, they would have been president, not him. Let's put it another way. Beginning with when Nixon won the White House in 1968, there have been 10 presidential elections. The score is: Republicans 7, Democrats 3. Is there a pattern here? You'd better believe it. The Ted Kennedys of the Democratic Party know more about how to lose than they know about how to win.

I wasn't impressed with Hillary during her years as First Lady, but she ran and won the U.S. Senate the way it needed to be done: by working hard, learning about New York, and then being a dutiful member of the U.S. Senate.

I write this very frankly: if Hillary isn't elected president, I will not see a woman president in my lifetime. That is hard believe but it is true.

What about the biggest pariah endorsement of all : George W. Bush. Although he has tried to play like he wants to remain above the fray in the primary , i suspect that the reason he has not leaned towards any of the republican contenders is because he knows it would be the kiss of death. But in the general he will have to endorse whoever the Republican candidate is and like Tony Blair , John Howard and countless others have learned. If Bush is for you , you can bet there will be a whole lotta people against you.

I am outraged at Chris Cillizza's use of the expression "pariah endorsement" to signify one that "can do more harm than good." My "Merriam-Webster" defines pariah as "a member of a low caste of southern India," an "outcast."

We don't want to sound racist or stereotype an entire community, do we?

Found an awesome article on this topic on the BlogZine SAVAGE POLITICS.

http://savagepolitics.com

It's called "Rubber Stamps R' Us".
Here is an excerpt: "Political endorsements have been a part of American Politics for more than a Century. They have been used to both consolidate a particular ideological position within a Party and/or to advocate the split from one imposing social current to another. They have also played a role in every subterranean aspect of our Nation's history, because we have been socially conditioned to give weight to any and all forms of patronization. In the old days, a Party Boss would expect the endorsement of a high ranking official within his organization before he would openly lend his support to any particular candidate or figure. At other times, specially at the beginning of the 18th Century, it was the actual Party Boss who would make sure that certain officials got endorsed above others, all in the name of flagrant economic favoritism (also read SP article Slaves, Democrats, and "Honest Abe"). To the detriment of the public interest, many of these "rubber stamps" have served candidates to prove their undying loyalty to the Party's (and eventually the National) Establishment interests. How negative is this archaic practice when juxtapositioned against the 21st Century?..." Get the rest of the article at http://savagepolitics.com/?p=61

Found an awesome article on this topic on the BlogZine SAVAGE POLITICS.

http://savagepolitics.com

It's called "Rubber Stamps R' Us".
Here is an excerpt: "Political endorsements have been a part of American Politics for more than a Century. They have been used to both consolidate a particular ideological position within a Party and/or to advocate the split from one imposing social current to another. They have also played a role in every subterranean aspect of our Nation's history, because we have been socially conditioned to give weight to any and all forms of patronization. In the old days, a Party Boss would expect the endorsement of a high ranking official within his organization before he would openly lend his support to any particular candidate or figure. At other times, specially at the beginning of the 18th Century, it was the actual Party Boss who would make sure that certain officials got endorsed above others, all in the name of flagrant economic favoritism (also read SP article Slaves, Democrats, and "Honest Abe"). To the detriment of the public interest, many of these "rubber stamps" have served candidates to prove their undying loyalty to the Party's (and eventually the National) Establishment interests. How negative is this archaic practice when juxtapositioned against the 21st Century?..." Get the rest of the article at http://savagepolitics.com/?p=61

How about the final endorsement - that of the voters?

Found an awesome article on this topic on the BlogZine SAVAGE POLITICS.

http://savagepolitics.com

It's called "Rubber Stamps R' Us".
Here is an excerpt: "Political endorsements have been a part of American Politics for more than a Century. They have been used to both consolidate a particular ideological position within a Party and/or to advocate the split from one imposing social current to another. They have also played a role in every subterranean aspect of our Nation's history, because we have been socially conditioned to give weight to any and all forms of patronization. In the old days, a Party Boss would expect the endorsement of a high ranking official within his organization before he would openly lend his support to any particular candidate or figure. At other times, specially at the beginning of the 18th Century, it was the actual Party Boss who would make sure that certain officials got endorsed above others, all in the name of flagrant economic favoritism (also read SP article Slaves, Democrats, and "Honest Abe"). To the detriment of the public interest, many of these "rubber stamps" have served candidates to prove their undying loyalty to the Party's (and eventually the National) Establishment interests. How negative is this archaic practice when juxtapositioned against the 21st Century?..." Get the rest of the article at http://savagepolitics.com/?p=61

Does Sharpton count as a pariah endorsement? I don't think either Clinton or Obama wants his support.

It is very clear Obama is the establishment candidate.
Kennedy is the Democratic Establishment.
Kennedy's and Kerry are the symobols of everything wrong with Democratic party. Kennedy was responsible for Carter's Loss to Reagan. Kerry was the spineless looser in 2004. These 2 spineless loosers reperesetns the loony left side of Democratic side, which runs the Dem establishment. It is disgusting to see These loosers ganging up on the most successful US president in last 50 years.

It is very clear Obama is the establishment candidate.
Kennedy is the Democratic Establishment.
Kennedy's and Kerry are the symobols of everything wrong with Democratic party. Kennedy was responsible for Carter's Loss to Reagan. Kerry was the spineless looser in 2004. These 2 spineless loosers reperesetns the loony left side of Democratic side, which runs the Dem establishment. It is disgusting to see These loosers ganging up on the most successful US president in last 50 years.

It is very clear Obama is the establishment candidate.
Kennedy is the Democratic Establishment.
Kennedy's and Kerry are the symobols of everything wrong with Democratic party. Kennedy was responsible for Carter's Loss to Reagan. Kerry was the spineless looser in 2004. These 2 spineless loosers reperesetns the loony left side of Democratic side, which runs the Dem establishment. It is disgusting to see These loosers ganging up on the most successful US president in last 50 years.

It is very clear who is the establishment candidate.
Kennedy's and Kerry are the symoblos of whatever is wrong with Democratic party. Kennesy was sresponsible for Carter's Loss to Reagan. Kerry was the spineless looser in 2004. These 2 spineless loosers reperesetns the loony left side of Democratic side. It is disgusting to see These loosers ganging up on the most successful US president in last 50 years.

norris qualifies as b-list and stallone is on the d? come on?! rambo could take on delta force single-handedly. let's get real.

or how about them aussies, rupert murdoch, yellowcake uranium, royals and niger????

here's a bit of foreshadowing...

Bill White, a former Bath partner, claims that Bath has "national security" connections. White, a United States Naval Academy graduate and former fighter pilot, charges that Bath developed a network of off-shore companies to camouflage the movement of money and aircraft between Texas and the Middle East, especially Saudi Arabia.

Alan Quasha, a Harken director and former chair of the company, is the son of attorney William Quasha, who defended figures in the Nugan Hand Bank scandal in Australia. Closed in 1980, Nugan Hand was not only tied to drug-money laundering and U.S. intelligence and mi- litary circles, but also to the CIA's covert backing for a "constitutional coup" in Australia that caused the fall of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam.

vbhoomes: I have said many times these endorsements by political folks holding office mean little one way or the other. It is my firm belief that there is an ulterior motive of some kind, the most being CYA. The Fla. results tomorrow night will be a good indication of who the Repubs are going to run against Hillary, and I think your guy has a pretty good chance of actually winning not only Fla., but the nomination as well.

for example, if we were to look at George W.'s past in his Harken OIL deals, in which he commits SEC FRAUD with Robert M. Gates help we can see his collusion with sand bros., and giving and getting favors in the future for him...

he already established his course of actions...in the vernacular of "his tribe," he would be "giving favors," if "he was accepting them,"...

herin the article of followment is referred to as "Junior," in reference to his relationship to his father George H.W. and his relative intelligence:

BEGIN
Junior's value to Harken soon became apparent when the company needed an infusion of cash in the spring of 1987. Junior and other Harken officials met with Jackson Stephens, head of Stephens, Inc., a large investment bank in Little Rock, Arkansas (Stephens made a $100,000 contribution to the Reagan-Bush campaign in 1980 and gave another $100,000 to the Bush dinner committee in 1990.)

In 1987, Stephens made arrangements with Union Bank of Switzerland (UBS) to provide $25 million to Harken in return for a stock interest in Harken. As part of the Stephens-brokered deal, Sheikh Abdullah Bakhsh, a Saudi real estate tycoon and financier, joined Harken's board as a major investor. *5 Stephens, UBS, and Bakhsh each have ties to the scandal-ridden Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI).

It was Stephens who suggested in the late 1970s that BCCI purchase what became First American Bankshares in Washington, D.C. BCCI later acquired First American's predecessor, Financial General Bankshares. At the time of the Harken investment, UBS was a joint-venture partner with BCCI in a bank in Geneva, Switzerland. Bakhsh has been an investment partner in Saudi Arabia with Gaith Pharoan, identified by the U.S. Federal Reserve Board as a "front man" for BCCI's secret acquisitions of U.S. banks.

END

ps. bank fraud, money laundering, savings and loan fiasco, drug running, subprime mortgage/moneylaundering

oh, I see you are not the original king of zouk...

he was a lot more like vin weber, aka Mitt Romney's campaign manager, PNAC signatory...

regarding string theory, it's been disproven...and physicists don't understand that they are looking 12-space and 42-space...

worm holes don't have to be large....past and present are addressable now, the past can be changed now...

patterns of reality are metaphorical and existent...repeating like classes of D.E.

.

Kennedy Family endorsement will give an air of legitimacy to Obama. It will not have any specific effect, but it will provide an atmosphere in which Obama can thrive and generate interest. It will also give him a huge buzz around the country.

Additionally, it will raise this question about the Clintons: why is that people who know them best and are close to them, do not want Hillary in the white house. Clintons have shown for many years, that POWER in itself is an aim, and its acquisition CAN BE a goal, damn the obstacles at achieving it.

Clinton was an awful president, who achieved little during his time. He squandered his mandate, the good will of people, and his supporters by satisfying his base personal weakness. His wife is no better, and will do no better. She is an opportunist, who in search of power will do "what it takes", including traumatizing the country by dividing us along racial and ethenic background. How the hell did she become the Senator from New York? What was her connection with New York? Other than quickly buying a house there so that she can qualify to enter the race. What an opportunity, and what an opportnist! what a shame that she filled the seat of Senator Moynihan?

What a shame indeed for New York Democrats.

Well, if the Kennedys -- Edward in particular -- are endorsing Obama, he can count himself one vote less!

Liberals seem to be swooning over Obama not because he has any sweeping proposals (or any proposals at all, it seems) but strictly on his "vision" for "change."

All very nice, even JFK-esque, but not the stuff of substance. What blows me away is how many people have bought into the fluffiness of Obama, while pointedly ignoring his lack of a national-level resume.

Bay of Pigs, anyone?

the ability to understand things is based upon understanding of the patterns of reality.

there really isn't much difference between being able to discern whether schrodingers cat is in the box,

or what motivated or motivates the current administration.

you can use night vision goggles to inspect the box and discern whether the cat is in fact alive or dead and in the box.

you can use forensic accounting or forensic examination of the details of the constituents of the current crop of people running the whitehouse to tell what and why they chose certain actions.

it's obvious. everything is obvious within contexts.

propagandists provide false framing that is easily removed.

just as schrodingers cat can be discerned in fact so can the motivations of the pollsters, pundits, whitehouse officials, Rupert Murdoch, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Obama, Al Gore, Dennis K.

trajectories establish motive and aim.

True, only one death in the wreck of the Edmund Kennedy.

but at least his political career was saved.

The party is over? Didn't Kennedy help Kerry get nominated . Didn't he (Kerry) screw it up to a guy with 33 percent approval rating. Glad to see all those new "change" endorsements. Haven"t they been around for years? Another great opportunity squandered by the liberal arm of the Democratic party. When are the leaders of the Democrats going to realize we need to become more moderate as a party. Look at all those new democrats that were elected in 2006. Mostly moderates. Are we Democrats going to be idiots for eternity?
Question. How should Hillary and Bill run against Obama. Just sit back and let him go as Edwards has? Its seems to me that any, I mean any. criticism by them is considered racist be Obama's folks or the media.
I remind my Democratic friends, in the general elections the Repubs will be racial. They won't care what the press thinks and they won't care what the Dems think.and the RNC will not care what the candidate thinks. Every time race comes up the republicans gain. Bob Corker said he did not approve of the racial ad run by the RNC here in Tennessee in 2006. They kept running it though. Another Question, who will win the general in South Carolina in 2008. Can't figure why all the fuss about SC.

Opymist: The song "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald" has/had nothing to do with Sen. Kennedy. Ted Kennedy's full name is Edward Moore Kennedy. His brother's middle name was Fitzgerald. The Edmund Fitzgerald was a lake freighter that sank suddenly during a gale storm on Lake Superior in 1975. Gordon Lightfoot wrote his song memorializing the 29 crewmen who died in 1976.

Try again.

Yes, light particles have wave like charactersitics and particle like characterstics, neither of which can be disproven, much to the chagrin of many who staked their reputations on it. there is a movement afoot to consolidate the two, mostly the school of string theory (Brian greene) but it is not confirmable with evidence, 14 strings look the same as 23 strings. We can only vagualy comprehend 3 or 4 or maybe five dimensions (after a few glasses of tequila) much less 23.

Like many thories that are fit to data, they look and feel cool, but are not considered scientific in a Popper sort of way. all it takes is a single refutation right around the next corner to throw them out.

very interesting stuff but the math is intense.

Quantum theory is generally accepted. the problem and the source of the heisenberg uncertainty is that by looking at a particle ( and shining a light on it to see it) you interact with it and change it. this has many stoners saying, " knew it". you must solve the time/space equations simultaneousy and if you know one, you don't know the other precisely. they are interchangable, remember, E=mc^2.

this is a phenomenon associated with solving an under detemined series of equations and the math leqads to the physical world reality.
but you should know by now that only in pure math is found real truth.

don't tell Kruggman, he will have to eat his columns for the last 20 years.

It is clear that other kook has some basis on an education but little grasp of reality. Maybe too much string theory. It can do that to you.

This is turning into the 1980 Dem primary, with HRC as Carter and Obama as Kennedy. Back then, party regulars KNEW that Carter would lead the party to defeat, so they drafted Kennedy as an opponent. Carter responded with one of the nastiest campaigns ever run. He won, but it was a pyhrric victory, as many Kennedy supporters refused to turn out for the ticket and Kennedy largely (and justifiably) sat on his hands.

Obviously, party old heads recognize that HRC is a loser, and they're rallying to Obama in the hope that he can save the party from yet another defeat. Pretty telling that experienced hands can see Obama is the more attractive candidate. While HRC energizes Republicans to vote Republican, Obama attracts them to vote Dem. I challenge ANYONE to name a Dem candidate in our lifetime more capable of attracting GOP votes than Obama. (Only possible one I can think of is RFK.) The fact is, people flat out like Obama; HRC's only hope is to keep Edwards in the race so the anti-Hillary vote is split. Who'd have thought that HRC, and not Obama's race, would be the issue?

mark in autism is trying to pander to your baser natures...

but he is from texaz

Ummm, you forgot two crucial steps, and they're related. First there's the Presidential endorsement. This proved vital to President Bush Senior in his run for the White House.

Secondly, the Non-Pariah Pariah non-endorsement. This is when a candidate goes out of their way to not get an endorsement when it turns out their endorsement would have been helpful. The most famous example was in the 2000 "election" when Al Gore separated himself from Bill Clinton instead of embracing the former President. The next most famous example is happening right now. The Republican candidates, even Rudy Giuliani, have done everything but beg President Bush to not endorse them. Isn't that crazy, when a candidate doesn't even want the guy in the White House to support him? I would hope that whoever takes my job would want my support when I leave.

HH, From your perspective, MM is just like TX. We salute you.

Bsimon, JD, and drindl all addressed my cocerns about readiness. Thanks.

I guess that the filters starting bouncing "Tesla2" so it now posts riddles as "Amero_NUA".

It is difficult to decipher which conspiracy theories it embraces: it has paid service to everything from Rufi's "Yale Plan" to "Bilderberg" to the IZC of Henry Ford, to the North American Union of Ron Paul.

It has claimed to have been an inner city school teacher. It has posted on several occasions a riddle about tuning violins.
It has asked about Schroedinger and Heisenberg [47 years ago I learned that the hydrogen atom's electron could be viewed as a wave, as well as a particle, and that it could only be located by probabilities and that merely locating it changed the dynamic and a set of differential equations described the system, but I have been a lawyer for 41 years now and have no idea why quantum physics riddles would be posted here - or whether I remember that stuff from Sears and Zemansky correctly or whether there is new stuff- KOZ?].

Tesla/Amero is addled and wasting our time.
Bsimon, your exchanges with KOZ look downright useful.

"......former Congressman Lee Hamilton, chairman of the House select committee investigating the Iran-contra affair, was shown ample evidence against Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, but he did not probe their wrongdoing. Why did Hamilton choose not to investigate? In a late 1980s interview aired on PBS 'Frontline,' Hamilton said that he did not think it would have been 'good for the country' to put the public through another impeachment trial. In Lee Hamilton's view, it was better to keep the public in the dark than to bring to light another Watergate, with all the implied ramifications. When Hamilton was chairman of the House committee investigating Iran-contra, he took the word of senior Reagan administration officials when they claimed Bush and Reagan were 'out of the loop.' Independent counsel Lawrence Walsh and White House records later proved that Reagan and Bush had been very much in the loop. If Hamilton had looked into the matter instead of accepting the Reagan administration's word, the congressional investigation would have shown the public the truth. Hamilton later said he should not have believed the Reagan officials. However, today, George W. Bush is considering appointing Hamilton UN ambassador."
Uncovering the Florida cover-up: The good fight continues
A Past Look, 25 December, 2000

"One of the key congressional Republicans fighting this rear-guard action was Rep. Dick Cheney of Wyoming, who became the ranking House Republican on the Iran-contra investigation. Cheney already enjoyed a favorable reputation in Washington as a steady conservative hand. Cheney smartly exploited his relationship with Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Ind., who was chairman of the Iran-contra panel.

This is starting to get interesting! Today, the NY NOW chapter came out and ripped Kennedy apart for his endorsement of Obama saying that they had stuck with him through all of his "women" problems and, now he betrays them (and they pretty much come right out and say this using thosae words - http://blogs.timesunion.com/capitol/?p=6285).... Rather like I have been saying all along, there are feminists and there are radical feminists. The latter group apparently is more than willing to sacrifice women, allow even sexual molestation, rape, you name it, on the part of some male, so long as they somehow can further their agenda, controlling that guy or giving him a pass for some future debt. SO they will "overlook" Bill and Ted and any other male doing anything, no matter how awful, to a woman who doesn't hold with their "party line", which aparently has something to do with lesbianism. These are despicable radical feminists. The other brand of feminists seem to be genuinely interested in equality, battered women, reproductive choice, and being decent human beings and good citizens. So, how on earth do we distinguish between the two, using commonly accepted terminology? It has become apparent that the radical crowd have been purposeful using actual feminism as a cover.

The illegal issue is a gop issue. Regan offered the last blanket amnesty. Bush would have. his party has been in control for 30 years (give or take, and the clintons are republcians). What have they done since then? Why now?

they needed to demonize teh dem's so they brought this out. The d's in a effort to get massive amounts of votes bought in. But make no mistake. The gop is in it for SLAVE LABOR. Cheap slave labor. High rent. Cheap wages. flood the oscial programs. The gop is behind illegal immagration. If not why do they not stop them and keep giving them jobs?

they needed a wedge issue to take the minds of war. Kind of backfired, no? HAHAHA

the gop is done. Enjoy the irrelevance you've earned gop

It is not surprising to see Clinton supporters down playing the endorsement of the Kennedys. Bill and Hillary Clinton lobbied for this very endorsement but lost it to Obama.
One cannot understand why the Clintons after being President for 8 years will be running behind an 'inexperienced' politician in the primaries of the Democratic party.
Firstly they changed their strategy to join Obama as candidates of change.
Secondly, Hillary capitulated her position on Iraq because Obama's initial stand was embraced by majority democrats.
Thirdly and fatally, the Clintons strategy in Hillary running as a tag team with Bill during the primaries confirms that Hillary cannot match Obama or Edwards and cannot stand alone. A sad development for a would be President.
Finally, Bill's introduction of racial prejudice into the fray as a strategy is back firing and may cost him his statesmanship just like Hillary's mention of Obama's past when she & Bill have a past brimming with scandals before and while in the very office she is seeking to return to.

Americans want change, the Clintons think and act as if it is a gender change or a racial change in leadership, but they are very wrong. Americans want a break from the past, a change in Washington's nuances. Unknown to the Clintons, they, Hillary and Bill belong to this past that Americans want to change.

The last Democratic Party candidate that occupied the White House was Bill Clinton who took over from a Bush and handed over to another Bush after serving for two terms. America is not ready for another Clinton (Hillary) to take over from the very Bush that Bill Clinton handed over to eight years ago. It belittles everybody to propose dynasty. America is not a banana republic.
For Democrats that don't see this, November will prove it as Republicans want Hillary to take to the cleaners.

Obama is a man whose time has come. Those in the democratic establishment that support Hillary do so because they owe allegiance to Bill Clinton who over the years as a two time president favored them. They must realize that this race is not about them but about their children, and there are other ways they can show gratitude to Bill without jeopardizing the interest of their children and America. They should choose a candidate that will return the Democratic Party back to the White House. They should do what is right not what they consider as right.

Obama is a movement that transcends party lines in present day politics in America.
His movement has put Republicans on edge as young republicans have moved across in great numbers to become democrats, all because of Obama.

After 4 primaries going into Super Tuesday, he leads Hillary in both the popular votes as well as in delegates.

Frustration and greed led the Clintons to introduce an ignoble strategy which has been documented post-Iowa to tar him as the 'black candidate' to propel Whites to withdraw their support for Obama. Americans (White, Black, Brown ) rejected this Clinton's strategy. The demographics in New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina disproved that. It sounded the death knell for the Clintons as after being 'the first Black President' they have cast themselves now as the #1 promoters of what divides rather than what unites America. A farewell to Bill's legacy.

YEAH!

From reading this site the gop are scared poopless. About time. They thought this all a joke. A "fairly tale". Didn't you gop?

enjoy the irrelevance you've earned. don't blame teh media or liberals or Obama or judges or teachers. Blame yourselves. Look in the mirror. Majority rule. You can't strong arm the system anymore. The future is now. american values and ideals revisted. If you hate your country, move elsewhere.

why would it be easy to destroy the WASHINGTON INSIDERS????

they sell illusion.

it's more work to support an illusion than to tell the truth.

want to defeat an illusion? tell the truth in such a way that seeing it destroys the illusion.

example: there never was a fear by the bush administration that we would be attacked by terrorists

1. no action was taken to protect our borders....25,000,000 _ILLEGALS_ proves that

a more specific instance....in Oregon with 180 miles of coastline, there was one INS agent....immediately after 9/11 he was put on part-time.

proof is in the pudding.

_occupation_ of iraq is about making money. e.o.s.

biggest money making venture todate, major scam...

least cost-effective business venture in modern history....

nothing compares. for every dollar spent, 3 cents returned.

you figure itout AMERICA. why are you paying for bushCO and CRONYs to get paid???

too stupid? or too pummeled by the zouks of the whirled?

.

.

.

The best Pariah endorsement of the season was Ralph Nader's endorsement of John Edwards! Edwards tried to keep that one as quiet as possible.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7647.html

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/an-endorsement-the-edwards-camp-isnt-bragging-about/

Symbolic endorsement:

John Kerry

i.e. the kiss of death for Obama!

To Sherardg:

If you think pointing out reality is jealousy....so be it.

Go, Hillary!!!!!!!!!All the way to the White House.

"I'm sure with the support of the zouk, Rudy Can't Fail."

A Clash reference! Bsimon, you just made your bones in my book.

"the insurgent,"

candidate.

he was set up, Dean was.

Gore is panned by the republicans on a as_needed basis.

and the "good guys," don't know how to win against the bad guys, because all they know is

"they are not playing fair,"

the don't know how to "destroy them,"

it aint too hard. but you have to "do that,"

not get them to "quit being bad,"

In May 1999, as the world's press detailed the biography of Russia's new prime minister, Sergei V. Stepashin, the reporters missed one of the most curious chapters.

In the closing days of George Bush's presidency in 1993, Stepashin secretly reported to the U.S. Congress that the outgoing president had participated in a scheme with Iran that bordered on treason.

Stepashin informed a special House task force that Russian intelligence information implicated George H.W. Bush, along with former President Reagan and CIA directors William J. Casey and Robert Gates in a series of clandestine contacts with Iran during the 1980 presidential campaign.

Stepashin, then chairman of the Supreme Soviet's Committee on Defense and Security Issues, had overseen an official review of what Moscow's intelligence files revealed about Republican secret activities aimed at undercutting President Carter's desperate efforts to free 52 American hostages held in Iran in 1980.

Those long-simmering allegations of Republican sabotage were known as the "October Surprise" controversy, named after GOP suspicions that Carter was hoping to free the hostages right before the November elections.

Instead, according to a variety of Iranian officials and foreign intelligence operatives, Repulsive_scammers, emissaries negotiated a secret deal to delay the hostages' freedom. The hostages were freed on Jan. 20, 1981, minutes after President Reagan was sworn in.

Robert M. GATES, current secretary of DEFENSE....former Young Republican Leader on campus

wotta surprise.

AEI ~= PNAC ~= JINSA

.

Chris, you say:
Remember when former Vice President Al Gore endorsed Howard Dean's campaign in late 2003? It was supposed to be the final piece of Dean's puzzle -- a symbol that the establishment of the party was lining up behind the insurgent candidate. And yet, it signaled the beginning of the end for Dean, as the activists who were his base began to see him as controlled by the very establishment they sought to take down.

I say:
What are you smoking?

"What's really funny is that every time you're faced with the indefensible in your failure of a President, you... bring up Clinton. "

you mean evertime you falsely accuse the currrent president (who is not running ) of illegal actions, with absolutely no proof, you don't like the idea that I bring up actual illegality conducted by your current candidate.

I don't blame you.

Ted Kennedy's endorsement may have been the embodiment of being a Democrat 20 years ago, but he has never resonated with southern democrats - certainly not those I've lived and worked with for 40plus years. As a young republican turned Democrat when Bill Clinton came along, I have very little respect for the far left or the far right. Common sense can be found on common ground, not on the political fringes. That is why my vote will be for Hillary Clinton in the Georgia primary on Feb. 5. This endorsement only lends strength to my decision to vote for a work horse over a show horse.

This is a question. Can someone answer. Does Ted Kennedy support Bush's "No Child Left Behind" legislation?
I'm thinking he does....but I'm not sure and could be way off base.
Thanks to anyone who lets me know.
T

"the storm"

was seeded, created.... it's a fraud.

Mr. Clinton, was persuaded to drop numbers of active military required.

why?

It's called outsourcing, consulting....

the 33 PERCENT that Beltway bandits, war profiteers place on top of the salary paid to

non military hired from CONTRACTORs / WAR PROFITEERing Companies,

per unit hired.

THE WAR PROFITEERING GROUPS
aka Halliburton, Blackwater, KBR, Carlyle Group, Bechtel, DynCORP

and others.

the "WAR CLOUD," was seeded....

as a money making venture.

ear marks? how about skid marks waved in your faces, as you appear to understand,

nothing.

SAUDIS, KUWIATIS, UAE's are amongst the biggest investors in CARLYLE GROUP, and mortage failure CITIGROUP...

.kingofzouk sells disinformation as a living.

.

That Ted Kennedy....what a guy!
His father sold secrets to the Nazi's when his father was an ambassador in England.
He's a good swimmer (but don't ever have him drive you home from a party.)
Didn't his nephew or someone get charged with rape at his house (I'm not sure of this...something like that)
He ran against an incumbent President...I thought that was a big party taboo.

So why is the media having some kind of love fest with Teddy now that he's supporting Obama?

"On reflection, I see that it could help BHO in MA, where he is polling behind HRC."

I work in MA. Most people here don't care much about John Kerry, Ted Kennedy or Deval Patrick the Democratic Governor. We need a President who can fix the economy. Not John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, or some new kind of Politician.

The relevant cases haven't yet reached the Supreme Court

but that never stops arrogant Libs from already knowing the outcome. Much like Bill was totally innocent and hillary never lies. Oh and the gem of the bunch - "the surge is a failure, the war is lost" - the speck of dust called Harry Reid.

how about "suspend disbeleif", that was a good one too. Can't wait for the campaign ad.

"the same NIE that is the source of the Bush lied propoganda?"

Its different from the Iran NIE, if that's what you mean. Its so hard to keep track of Bush's lies; you'll have to be more specific.

"funny how you libs find illegality in everything Republican that never went to court, but when your hero is actually a perjurer and an abuser of power, it is like it was all a fantasy"

Silly zouk. What's really funny is that every time you're faced with the indefensible in your failure of a President, you... bring up Clinton.

Lat thought; good luck to your boy Rudy tomorrow! I'm sure with the support of the zouk, Rudy Can't Fail.

"according to an NIE last year"

is this the same NIE that is the source of the Bush lied propoganda? But now it is all good. Hmmm. sounds like Lib selective data mining. Kruggman would be proud, although threatened.

but based on your response propoganda is clearly superior to justice. that sounds about right for Lenin and Trotsky.

"I had no idea that your opinion supercedes the US Suprteme court."

Silly zouk. The relevant cases haven't yet reached the Supreme Court. A couple have gotten close, but before being sent to the nine, the Bush admin has changed their policies to avoid being subjected to an SC decision.

when you pack the supreme court with justices that back

party opinion, not render verdicts based upon law.

you get the current supreme court. one of them struck down by reverdend Robertson....a voodoobaptist

.

"so only wars that we are winning do you prefer to begin losing. Is that accurate?"

Silly zouk. The topic was which policies of Bush shouldn't be continued for another 4 years. I said 'endless war', not 'all war'.

"so all our justice, that you just proclaimed you can interpret on your own, must still be subject to John Kerry's UN vote, with Libya and Iran heading the criminal courts. Interesting turn of events."

Silly zouk. Its not about being subjected to international law, its about winning the hearts and minds of people in the mid east who might otherwise admire the terrorists. You put them on trial, demonstrate how they kill indiscriminately - including other Muslims - in violation of the prophet's word. One of the great questions that Rummy asked still hasn't been addressed by Bush; it was "Are we capturing or killing the terrorists faster than they're recruiting replacements?" The answer (which was 'no', by the way, according to an NIE last year) implies we need to do something different.

king of soak...

is selling repulsivescammer literature and lies as a part and parcel of his treatment....

endless war as in PNAC AEI JINSA AIPAC war profiteer

jargon.

bosnia? you want to talk about who Clintons' advisors were or who the PNAC signatories are or who AEI is and how Brookings has been infiltrated by neo con artists...

or you just want to put out a lot of half lies, that most people don't catch...

and speaking of pariahs, you and Roberto Novak have a lot in common don't you?

?

notice the little spreader of disinformation, doesn't address posters that can refute, or destroy him.

he picks and choses, just like his facts....he doesn't place them in context

he falsifies that....innuendo and blasphemy...."appeal to emotion," denigration...false linking

rumor mongering.

so who are you for evelyn and whom are you talking to???

demagogurey is winning this election and won it for bush in 2000 and 2004

it's a good tool used by the nazis.

hate as a family value. disguising homophobia as a "family value," is a good one don't you think evelyn?

.

"how did you decide it was illegal- I referenced my copy of the Constitution "

I had no idea that your opinion supercedes the US Suprteme court. can you fix my paring tickets too?

"Dems tax and spend." Well we can agree on that.

"selectively enforce laws passed by the US Congress. Such a practice is not constitutional." was this conclusion again a result of your own personal reading of the laws in your basement during commercials?

funny how you libs find illegality in everything Republican that never went to court, but when your hero is actually a perjurer and an abuser of power, it is like it was all a fantasy.

Is this some sort of daytime TV court like Judge Judy but with supreme simon instead?

"bosnia - no. that's not a bush policy. Can you read?" so only wars that we are winning do you prefer to begin losing. Is that accurate?

" tried before an international tribunal" so all our justice, that you just proclaimed you can interpret on your own, must still be subject to John Kerry's UN vote, with Libya and Iran heading the criminal courts. Interesting turn of events.

what's the significance of heisenbergs uncertainty principle to schrodingers cat and why is that not an apt description of reality....

why do fractals and bose einstein condensates point at the same thing?????

.

What has the internet wrought. So much hate being spilled by people who do not even have the courage to identify themselves. Hiding behind false monikers to insult and barrage others. America is not made great by your anonymous cowardice, hatred and vitrolic words.

Why not put your energy into working together and finding solutions to the many real problems facing your country today?

The past is past. Live in the present and plan for the future. Only so can you help your country.

It matters not who your candidate is if you are so consumed by hate.

oh know it's a liars convention with zouk spreading the jam.

.

This post is right on. This particular Kennedy with this particular candidate at this particular time in our history speaks to an unusual event that will resonate with voters.
Ohg
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/01/27/kennedys-endorse-obama-so-what/

king of soak...

is selling repulsivescammer literature and lies as a part and parcel of his treatment....

endless war as in PNAC AEI JINSA AIPAC war profiteer

jargon.

bosnia? you want to talk about who Clintons' advisors were or who the PNAC signatories are or who AEI is and how Brookings has been infiltrated by neo con artists...

or you just want to put out a lot of half lies, that most people don't catch...

and speaking of pariahs, you and Roberto Novak have a lot in common don't you?

?

This may not be a good thing for Obama. Republicans don't like Ted Kennedy. He is too liberal for many moderates. These are the voters Obama wants to appeal to. John Kerry's endorsement didn't help him much earlier. Why is it going to be different this time? These endorsements and the Media Hoopla don't mean much to the voters.

OMG - It's a nerd convention.

can you let shroedinger's cat in, I hear him meowing.

bosnia - no. that's not a bush policy. Can you read?

you mean standard Dem procedure? - no. Dems tax and spend. Repubs borrow and spend. two different beasts. I'd rather have balanced budgets, but in the lesser-of-two-evils matchup borrow and spend is worse than tax and spend.

you mean confining people who want and try to kill us instead of letting them go? - I mean that people who we're incarcerating should be tried before an international tribunal, the same way we treated the german and japanese war criminals post WWII.

is that a reference to a clinton thing. - no, its a reference to the so-called 'signing statements' used by Pres Bush to selectively enforce laws passed by the US Congress. Such a practice is not constitutional.

how did you decide it was illegal- I referenced my copy of the Constitution that protects US citizens from unreasonable search & seizure by their government. The executive does not have the authority to order telecom companies to allow wire-tapping without a court warrant.

Endless war, - do you mean bosnia, that little action that was guaranteed to be concluded in one year. Or Somalia, that one where we lost and retreated, the same reaction Dems seem to have with all wars these days.

Endless borrow & spend fiscal policy, - you mean standard Dem procedure?

extra-legal imprisonment - you mean confining people who want and try to kill us instead of letting them go?

extra-legal policy making, - is that a reference to a clinton thing. I don't remember a lot of Repubs going to jail over this but do remember a record number of Dems.

illegal wire-tapping, - how did you decide it was illegal, in your own private court down in your basement?

stuff like that.

I think the Pariah Endorsement is interesting but what about a strange middle ground between the Pariah and the Celebrity endorsements? Like when Pat Robertson backed Giuliani. While it opened the eyes of some of the far right to a candidate they had previously snubbed, it put off nearly all of Giuliani's liberal and moderate supporters.

that's right,

just checking... a lot of people claim to be this and that here.

and what a bose einstein condensate and a violin have in common is that they have to be tuned to work... PBS aired a good special on bose einstein condensates recently, that detailed the problems with achieveing temperatures near absolute zero... it sort of points to the probalistic universes/multiuniverses as a collary of it's finding...unstated...but they didn't state how lasers are used to cool either.

using a laser to create a resonance, cooled state... could be likened to tuning a guitar to a "best state of being," given the state of itself in relationship to it's surroundings.

entropy doesn't exist except as a local event, if we have multiple universes, or probable universes and the probable or parallel universes contain the dark mass...

so simple simon are you going to vote for the "extra-legal candidate" - hillary?

Posted by: rpy1 | January 28, 2008 04:26 PM

man are you smart. were you in al gore's classes (GPA 1.7).

so smart you can't even tell when someone is yanking your chain (amero_NUA | January 28, 2008 04:23 PM ). Please quote some more mindless qualifications as to why we should listen to a misfit like you.

"every single last one of them?"

just the major ones.

Endless war, Endless borrow & spend fiscal policy, extra-legal imprisonment, extra-legal policy making, illegal wire-tapping, stuff like that.

I'm sure there are little things he's done that don't require or necessitate change. One, of the top of my head, was the sale of that port company a year or two ago; I recall agreeing with Bush that killing the deal because we didn't trust the UAE would be a detriment to our diplomatic relationship with a key ally in the mideast. Of course, he lost that battle anyway & the ports deal was killed.

Now all we need is for Al Gore to endorse Obama. Kennedy is about as good of an endorsement as you can get, and JFK is the Democratic Ideal. If his daughter says he embodies JFK best, who is to argue with that?

But there is one other endorsement of that power, that of Al Gore. I wish he'd break his neutral respect for the Clintons and endorse Obama.

"get a lot of water in there quickly if a chain reaction were to start. "

I presume you will be able to flip the switch before the nuclear reaction can commence. It is a rather slow operation, taking something like 1^-500 seconds. you must have fast hands. Comes from stealing from the successful probably.

and another interesting feature is the ability to convert fission and fusion easily and readily with the same device, turning it into a run away reaction.

did you know that the essential product of a nukular reaction is heat. it is really just a big steam engine, same as coal. the efficiency is totally irrelevant with nukes. of course it wastes heat. but how does it "waste" water. It boils it.

you physics people have always been shut in nerds. you should keep away from others. your utter geekiness annoys us.

amero, I'm not sure where you're going with this, but I'll do this once...

******
what's the 5th law of thermodynamics???
******

There isn't one.

******
what's the fourth state of matter?
******

Plasma.

******
what do a bose einstein condensate and a violin have in common?
******

Not sure what you're getting at here, but I would guess that you're pointing toward standing waves. Am I right?

why are the republicans all attacking Hillary as a unit?

why are the token democrats Kerry and Kennedy choosing Obama...

is there any difference between those two goups of paper other than stated ones?

are they infact more representative of insider washington than parties...

they killed two kennedy's and rolled the 3rd.... and he stayed rolled. Kerry took a dive in '04

.

Drindl: just beat a deadline today and am punch drunk although optimyst nailed it. 'Sides, I already made definitive comments about nuclear power a couple of weeks ago and don't feel like revisiting that particular topic.

what's the 5th law of thermodynamics???

what's the fourth state of matter?

what do a bose einstein condensate and a violin have in common?

Sorry, posted too quickly...

Eff = 1 - (T_cold/T_hot)

(otherwise, it would be negative)

zouk, are you not familiar with this? I forget the name of the law, but the value of the maximum eff. of a heat engine is given by:

Eff = 1 - (T_hot/T_cold)

Where T_hot is the temp of the high temp heat source, and T_cold is the temp of the heat sink.

But what do I know? I just have a master's degree in physics.

"the storm"

was seeded, created.... it's a fraud.

Mr. Clinton, was persuaded to drop numbers of active military required.

why?

It's called outsourcing, consulting....

the 33 PERCENT that Beltway bandits, war profiteers place on top of the salary paid to

non military hired from CONTRACTORs / WAR PROFITEERing Companies,

per unit hired.

THE WAR PROFITEERING GROUPS
aka Halliburton, Blackwater, KBR, Carlyle Group, Bechtel, DynCORP

and others.

the "WAR CLOUD," was seeded....

as a money making venture.

ear marks? how about skid marks waved in your faces, as you appear to understand,

nothing.

SAUDIS, KUWIATIS, UAE's are amongst the biggest investors in CARLYLE GROUP, and mortage failure CITIGROUP...

.

So, will history judge Bill Clinton's endorsement of Hillary to be a pariah endorsement? Depending on the outcome, I suspect it might make such an ironic judgment.

Notice on the republican side that no one is seeking George Bush's endorsement. Kinda makes you wanna say hmmmm. . . . Pariah, indeed!

On nuclear power, there is a theoretical limit on the efficiency of any generator, and the rest goes to stuff like heat. In addition, with nukes you do actually want to have the option to get a lot of water in there quickly if a chain reaction were to start.

Posted by: rpy1 | January 28, 2008 03:52 PM

another clueless poster weighs in on physics. this is getting to be most amusing. Is there any topic you Libs won't bloviate on without the slightest notion of what you are talking about?

Endorsements are useless. Or at least they should be. Anyone who can be so easily swayed by Oprah, Babs or the Kennedys really should not be allowed to vote. And enough already with the "Obama inspires" nonsense. Perhaps he'd make a nice motivational speaker. But President? Give me a break. He has no experience and says nothing substantial. Its all fluff and cotton candy. And anyone who thinks that the political charges against him are unfair should not engage in political debates. That's the nature of politics. If he's going to publish his drug use, take money and purchase cheap real estate from a felonious slum lord, and use words like "brotha", then don't wonder why people would bring race into the picture. And finally, let's not forget that he threw the first punch in the debate when he brought up Hillary and Wal-Mart. Sorry, you can't throw punches and then whine after someone else throws back. As for endorsements form Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, it speaks little of their previous judgment and credibility when just a few short years ago they trumpted Hillary John Edwards, respectively. Please, they're just trying to hitch they're pathetic selves onto anything that will put them back in the national spotlight.

Endorsements are useless. Or at least they should be. Anyone who can be so easily swayed by Oprah, Babs or the Kennedys really should not be allowed to vote. And enough already with the "Obama inspires" nonsense. Perhaps he'd make a nice motivational speaker. But President? Give me a break. He has no experience and says nothing substantial. Its all fluff and cotton candy. And anyone who thinks that the political charges against him are unfair should not engage in political debates. That's the nature of politics. If he's going to publish his drug use, take money and purchase cheap real estate from a felonious slum lord, and use words like "brotha", then don't wonder why people would bring race into the picture. And finally, let's not forget that he threw the first punch in the debate when he brought up Hillary and Wal-Mart. Sorry, you can't throw punches and then whine after someone else throws back. As for endorsements form Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, it speaks little of their previous judgment and credibility when just a few short years ago trumpted Hillary John Edwards, respectively. Please, they're just trying to hitch they're pathetic selves onto anything that will put them back in the national spotlight.

One of the best classes I took at GWU was a speech class where the professor talked about "reluctant testimony," an endorsement from somebody who seems like they should be against you. This category should be added to the list.

Often this means a cross-party endorsement, like Sen. Joe Leiberman's endorsement of Sen. John McCain, but it's really anything counter-intuitive.

That's one of the reasons that the Swiftboaters against John Kerry were so devestating. Had they endorsed him, the response would have been, "Well of course they endorsed Kerry, they were his Viet Nam buddies." But because these were people spoke the opposite of what one would expect, it was deemed newsworthy and people took notice.

The same thing with today's Kennedy endorsements. The story isn't so much that they endorsed Obama, but that they did not endorse Clinton, given the two families' long history. The benefit she would have reaped from a Kennedy endorsement pales in comparison to the blow she took by not receiving it.

The absolute last thing we need right now is 4 more years of Bush's policies.

Posted by: bsimon | January 28, 2008 04:07 PM

every single last one of them? your kookiness is showing.

Claudia:

You don't remember Gordon Lightfoot's tribute to the tragic "Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald"? That's where those haunting lines came from -- hardly funny.

The Kennedy endorsement is most important because it helps Obama where he most needs it -with older voters, women, unions and hispanics. Will give some cover to establishment types as well, but the big shoe to drop there will be when a Clinton superdelegate announces a switch to Obama.

vbhoomes writes, in a scathing indictment of McCain, that
" I have a problem with disloyalty. "

Funny thing is, when it comes to the Bush admin, a lot of the swing voters who will select the winner of the 2008 race will VALUE disloyalty in a Republican. The absolute last thing we need right now is 4 more years of Bush's policies.