I've been observing the Dem & Rep go back and forth with nonsense. Its either Palin issues or Obama not choosing Clinton as VP. I recently was eating at a restaurant and over heard a group of people conversing about the democrates party is too soft to win this election. I feel that the republicans no matter what decision is made by the party. The decision is embrace even if it's wrong or in question. On the other hand the Democratic party is basically fighting amongs each other instead of fighting a strong campaign. As a party what do the democrates need done to win this election?

In retrospect, being too soft, was the knock on the McCain 2000 campaign in the Republican primaries against G.W. Bush, and with the Democrats in the 2004 presidential election when Kerry made his limp lip bid. This election, however you actually can see that the Dems are spending the money countering the Pubs commercials with ads of their own. All the Dems really need to do is continuously hammer away on the economy and in return that will make the middle and lower classes show up to vote. The Iraqi war issue is secondary as you see most of the public leaning toward leaving the control to the Iraqis asap with the shift currently on Afghanistan and the elusive OBL becoming a topic again. Health care will always get some play as it usually does every four years.

Anyway... Gore's campaign in 2000 actually was correct with their slogan "it's the economy stupid." Unfortunately Al Gore was stipulating too many of his environmental agenda issues along side the economy issue and didn't spend enough time swinging back at Dubya for his rhetorical nonsense. The Dems are running a much improved campaign this go around than the previous two times. BTW the Clinton's had the fierceness for campaigning had Hillary been the nominee, but became too self-absorbed to relate the Dems views to the public the way that an Obama/Biden ticket does.

I completely understand what your saying. I have a question for you, do you think it's unfair that H. Clinton is telling the world that she would be a better choice than biden for the VP spot. I feel Hiliary should be supportive towards the demecratic party to win this election. I think Hiliary agenda regardless of who wins is Hiliary 2012.

My answer to your original question. The Dem party needs to turn right, hard right. It has been hijacked by people so far left that is does not resemble the party of your grandfather, when it was actually the party of the working man.

Donald,

As brazing as the Clinton's are, I don't think they want to undermine the Democratic party and risk ex-president Bill Clinton having more egg on his face. Now having witnessed the campaign that the Clinton's waged during the Democratic primaries, it leaves me little doubt that Hillary is hedging her bets either for a future run at presidency, a Supreme Court seat, or in the Obama cabinet on health reform. It occurred to me recently that if Obama becomes president that Biden might serve as VP only one term and then the following ticket would be Obama/Clinton in 2012. Hillary then would run for president in 2016 in which she would be 69 years of age, actually younger than McCain is now.

As Gal. said ;the Dems set themselves up by selecting one of the extreme left representatives of their party. We would be looking at a Mondale or McGovern-like defeat if the Republicans had not damaged their own brand in the last decade.

Had they stuck to the principles that got them the majority in 1996 the Republicans would be looking at a landslide instead of fighting for their political existence. The selection of Obama threw them a life line that frankly they did not deserve to get.

McCain's selection of Palin satisfies the base of the party and leaves McCain free to court the centrist in America. Obama's shift to the center appears disengenuous because he fought a long primary campaign that catered to the left. His base gets angry when he drifts too far to the middle . He selected Biden because it was thought that Biden would appeal to the middle. But Biden is ranked #3 most liberal in the Senate and he is frankly uninspiring .

Hillary would've been a much better selection for the VP slot if Obama could've checked his ego at the door. But rumblings of discontent in the party could force Obama to do an "October Suprise " ,and bump Biden from the ticket in favor of HRC (or as I like to call her "Evita") .

The dems should stay with the high-road campaign while the repub campaign self-destructs.

The high road being cease asking the Iraqis to stall negotiations with the Bush administration until after the elections ?
SEN. BARACK OBAMA WANTS TROOPS OUT OF IRAQ, BUT WANTS A DELAY IN NEGOTIATIONS FOR REMOVAL - New York Post

Or perhaps wishing that economy goes south so he can politically profit from it?
From the CNN transcripts of a couple of Obama supporting commentators :

Quote:

---

DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: But what happened over the weekend with the economy and the bottom falling out of the financial markets -- and we have been saying for some time on this program this is the worst financial crisis since the Depression -- Alan Greenspan said on Sunday the worst economic situation he's seen -- it seems to me that there's a real turning point now, that that momentum on McCain's side is likely to fade. And there is the opportunity for Obama to seize the momentum back on his side. I don't know if he's going to do it or not. He is trying. McCain has an opportunity here as well. But there's no question right now that this -- this really dark economic situation is now going to be -- is going to really -- is going to, I think, blot out a lot of this question about who -- the backing-and-forthing and the advertising, and focus on the issues.

ANDERSON COOPER, HOST: Right.

GERGEN: And that's what -- that's what Obama has wanted to do. He's now got the opportunity.

I think, personally, he's got the critique down, but he still hasn't provided a message about what he would do, nor has he really surrounded himself, in the way he needs to, with the Bob Rubins and the Paul Volckers and the Larry Summers and Laura Tysons, and have them as a tight unit. I think he still has to do that.

COOPER: Candy, no doubt -- very quickly -- on the campaign trail, it obviously played a big role today. You anticipate, in the days ahead, issue number one, it's going to be front and center?

CANDY CROWLEY, CNN: Oh, absolutely.

I mean, listen, just as foreclosures were showing up on B-17, or in the real estate section, along comes this horrific headline out of Wall Street.

COOPER: Right.

CROWLEY: I mean, this is what they wanted. They believe, of course, that the economy is one of their strengths and that they can paint John McCain as George Bush.

---

The Obama campaign wanted horrific Wall Street headlines to help their campaign. He has personally tried to undermine US diplomacy. That's what I call taking the high road

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

The Obama campaign wanted horrific Wall Street headlines to help their campaign.

---

Another republican lie. He has said no such thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

He has personally tried to undermine US diplomacy.

---

Yet another lie.

This is what I am talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55
He has personally tried to undermine US diplomacy.

Yet another lie.

This is what I am talking about.

---

NK you can't get away with that . Obama said before his trip to Iraq it was his intention to stall negotiations . (and my source is impecable ;the liberal newspaper of record... the NY slimes )

TRAVEL PLANS; War Zones on the Itinerary - New York Times

Quote:

---

Among the issues being discussed between Mr. Zebari and the presidential candidates is a long-term security accord between Iraq and the United States. While the Bush administration would like to see an agreement reached by midsummer, Mr. Obama said he opposed such a swift timetable.
''My concern is that the Bush administration, in a weakened state politically, ends up trying to rush an agreement that in some ways might be binding to the next administration,'' Mr. Obama said, ''whether it's my administration or Senator McCain's administration.''

---

That was in June .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55
The Obama campaign wanted horrific Wall Street headlines to help their campaign.
Another republican lie. He has said no such thing.

---

I did not say he said it .He would not be that stupid . I said his cheerleader squad at CNN said it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I did not say he said it .He would not be that stupid . I said his cheerleader squad at CNN said it.

---

That was my point, I'm glad you got it.

Hi, The democrats are not being too soft, they playing fair.

My sister leads the obama group in Michigan. And today one of her co workers told her he couldn't come in today because his tires were slashed for being an obama supporter. Not only is that rude, he had coffee and food thrown at his car and him.

Republicans need to calm down, he's only 16.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

As Gal. said ;the Dems set themselves up by selecting one of the extreme left representatives of their party. We would be looking at a Mondale or McGovern-like defeat if the Republicans had not damaged their own brand in the last decade.

---

Nope. What the Dems have is a young presidential candidate that's more level headed than John McCain and is left of GW Bush. I can think of a lot worse things like being on par with Dubya, i.e. John McCain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Had they stuck to the principles that got them the majority in 1996 the Republicans would be looking at a landslide instead of fighting for their political existance. The selection of Obama threw them a life line that frankly they did not deserve to get.

---

What principles? The Democrat's primary redistricting revamp? It's a screwed up way of finally finding out the nominee and maybe the Dems will wise up and simplify in the future. But Hillary fought a tough election and CNN disclosed had they used a similar formula( like the Pubs), it still would had been a tight race. Obama and the DNC gave her the room that they felt she needed, although it was made for TV drama.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

McCain's selection of Palin satisfies the base of the party and leaves McCain free to court the centrist in America. Obama's shift to the center appears disengenuous because he fought a long primary campaign that catered to the left. His base gets angry when he drifts too far to the middle . He selected Biden because it was thought that Biden would appeal to the middle. But Biden is ranked #3 most liberal in the Senate and he is frankly uninspiring .

---

Blah blah blah with the cookie cutter mentality and liberal rhetoric. Conservative, liberal, or moderate, the issues all over the place, and each one doesn't necessarily fit neatly into a single category, "Tom.". Palin's a puppet. All she does is attempt to parrot John McCain. Majority of the time I know her speech content before she utters a word and it comes from some of those same speech writers that Dubya used. Biden is seasoned and doesn't have to have his hand held. If I have to pick between two old Washington insiders, I'll take Biden over McCain any day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Hillary would've been a much better selection for the VP slot if Obama could've checked his ego at the door. But rumblings of discontent in the party could force Obama to do an "October Suprise " ,and bump Biden from the ticket in favor of HRC (or as I like to call her "Evita") .

---

Bwa ha ha ha! If she was that darn good and closer to center than left than Obama, and as desperate as McCain is (and yes he is), John could had checked his ego at the door of one of his seven houses. BTW I can certainly think of a lot better Republican candidates than John McCain or his VP pick in Sarah Palin. Hillary would had been a dynamic part of the Dem ticket and in time I expect she'll mature from this lesson, but don't expect that to happen by October.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Why would she do that when she holds a powerful position in the Senate ? She could end up being the next Teddy Kennedy of the party.

---

Because her last name is "Clinton."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DonaldM_23

I've been observing the Dem & Rep go back and forth with nonsense. Its either Palin issues or Obama not choosing Clinton as VP. I recently was eating at a resturant and over heard a group of people conversing about the democrates party is too soft to win this election. I feel that the republicans no matter what decision is made by the party. The decison is embrace even if it's wrong or in question. On the other hand the Democratic party is basically fighting amongs each other instead of fighting a strong campaign. As a party what do the democrates need done to win this election?

---

This election has been all about bickerings and personal insults. If they keep with up with these strategy, we're doomed.

Bobby
Lynn Forester De Rothschild now supporting McCain .That is a major PUMA defection .

What I am interested in is if Evita's sudden decline to address the anti-Mahdi Hatter Rally in NY Monday is marching orders from BO ? If it's true then she is still in his camp. But her support for him has been tepid at best and she has done little to convince PUMAs to support Zeus .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

... Evita's ... the anti-Mahdi Hatter ... BO ... Zeus .

---

Who are these people?

Donald_23
On Sept 16th you said that HRC said she was the better choice to be vp. Where and when did you hear this? Where can I read that statement.

Tomder55
On Sept 16th You said that Biden Made the statement that Hillary would have been the better choice for vp. Where and when did you hear this. Where can I read that statement.
I am looking to get some facts here.

YouTube - Biden says Clinton would have been a better VP
"She is qualified to be President of the United States of America, she's easily qualified to be vice president of the United States of America and, quite frankly, it might have been a better pick than me,"

Thanks for the reference
But in all fairness to him you got to admit he made that statement to be polite, trying to bring the party together, not to just say outright she would have been the better choice for vp.

I wonder tandemforus... I wonder .

I think he is uninspirational and frankly.. being in the swamp longer than McCain sort of dilutes Obama's mantra.

Clearly he was picked to give cover for Obama's lack of foreign policy credentials . But when push came to shove .Biden has been on the wrong side of policy in my opinion dating back to the Cold War.

He was opposed to all Reagan initiatives to bring down the Soviet Empire. He was one of the few who opposed the 1990 Gulf War. And his tri-partition plan for Iraq was the single dumbest post-war suggestion I have heard.

If Biden was chosen by Obama to cover the lack of foreign policy experience. So why was Palin chosen as McCain running mate?

That's easy . I gave my opinion why in my first response.

Quote:

---

McCain's selection of Palin satisfies the base of the party and leaves McCain free to court the centrist in America.

---

I will also add that energy is a big issue and Palin has been very active as the Guv of Alaska in adding to the nations energy supply. She also has taken on the establishment Republicans in her state and McCain likes to think himself (and there is much truth to this) as a maverick who doesn't mind taking on his own party ;and crossing over to work with the Democrats.

In my response I made no secret that the Republican brand is damaged and although he was not my first choice; the Republican may have stumbled on to the right candidate for the times. McCain is perhaps the only Republican who had a chance this election cycle because he is not easily identified with the last 8 years (despite the lame attempt by Obama to paint McCain as Bush III)

We have been getting off target here, its easy to do. The question was"Are the dems to soft to win this election"
My answer is no

It seems as if the dems lately have been reading the Carl Rove playbook.
I saw that last week 77% of Dem ads were negative while 66% of rep ads were negative.
Both candidates said going in this was to be a clean election.
Its going to get even worse in the next few weeks, it seems as if the dems are not standing by this time waiting to get "Swift boated". It's been proven that negative ads work.

And DonaldM_23
Could you tell me where you heard/read where HRC said she was more qualifed to be VP

Some trivia :
With all Due respect to Karl Rove ,he is a rank amateur compared to the fathers of mud slinging dirty campaigning... Jefferson and Adams.

Jefferson's campaign accused President Adams of having a "hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman."

Adams' campaign called Vice President Jefferson "a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father."

Adams was labeled a fool, a hypocrite, a criminal, and a tyrant, while Jefferson was labeled a weakling, an atheist, a libertine, and a coward.

Back then the news papers were the blogs of their time ,and the campaigns made good use of them. James Callendar was Jefferson's Rove. He started a ridiculous slander that Adams wanted a war with France. Later he turned on Jefferson and began the Sally Hemming rumors that turned out to be true.

Hard to believe these 2 American icons were the best of friends .As a side note they both died on the same day ;the 4th of July on the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Adams last words? "Thomas Jefferson still survives"

[QUOTE=tandemsforus]We have been getting off target here, its easy to do. The question was"Are the dems to soft to win this election"
My answer is no

It seems as if the dems lately have been reading the Carl Rove playbook.
I saw that last week 77% of Dem ads were negative while 66% of rep ads were negative.
Both candidates said going in this was to be a clean election.
Its going to get even worse in the next few weeks, it seems as if the dems are not standing by this time waiting to get "Swift boated". It's been proven that negative ads work.

And DonaldM_23
Could you tell me where you heard/read where HRC said she was more qualifed to be VP[/QUOTE
I never said she would be more qualified. She has silently implied that she would be a better choice for the VP spot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Bobby
Lynn Forester De Rothschild now supporting McCain .That is a major PUMA defection .

What I am interested in is if Evita's sudden decline to address the anti-Mahdi Hatter Rally in NY Monday is marching orders from BO ? If it's true then she is still in his camp. But her support for him has been tepid at best and she has done little to convince PUMAs to support Zeus .

---

Boo-hoo "Tom." The Obama camp lost a "Rothschild." She was a Hillary supporter that jumped fence from the Dems when she found out that Obama's tax plan didn't give her 600 million dollars worth the break that John McCain's would, because McCain is going to look out for the upper class. Yes! Another upper class Rothschild that is a perfect representation of the John and Cindy McCain good old buddy network. Bye-Bye and so-long to "Lynn Forester De Rothschild" don't let the door hit in the cheeks on the way out. I'm only interested in substantive issues.

Substantive issues? Would that be like the transfer of wealth from the pockets of those that have it to the pockets of those who don't?

Don't get me wrong, I qualify as a "nearly" have not, but nobody owes me anything if I don't earn it. Obama's talk about giving everyone checks, or bigger refunds when they pay no tax to begin with is just a cheap political trick to buy votes from the dumb-masses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galveston1

Substantive issues? Would that be like the transfer of wealth from the pockets of those that have it to the pockets of those who don't?

---

But isn't that the Christian way? Are you not Christian?

Actually no it is not the Christian way to pick someone's pockets. Charity that is not voluntary is not charity at all. There is no virtue in saying that my tax money pays for institutions of charity and there is no virtue to compel someone to contribute against their wishes. The Bibledoes not say "thou shalt not steal except by majority vote. " We are instructed to pay our taxes ;but we are not instructed to like it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galveston1

Substantive issues? Would that be like the transfer of wealth from the pockets of those that have it to the pockets of those who don't?

Don't get me wrong, I qualify as a "nearly" have not, but nobody owes me anything if I don't earn it. Obama's talk about giving everyone checks, or bigger refunds when they pay no tax to begin with is just a cheap political trick to buy votes from the dumb-masses.

---

Huh? Galv, next year send your refund to c/o Lynn Forester De Rothschild. In fact why don't you hand deliver to her at her mansion at Ascott House, the country estate in Buckinghamshire about 46 miles north of London. I get a kick out of people, especially hard working "nearly have not" folk, that work their tails off and at the end of the day are bothered by Obama, for the fact that the wealthy affluent would be taxed at a higher upper class rate. You'd propose all those programs in Washington are completely trifle waste, but it's OK run up a debt on a wrong war and give breaks to big corporations that stuff executive bonus stocking every year, scale back, or send jobs overseas. No wonder we've become a nation of trickle down economic believing fools and poor thinking slaves that relish in helping the Bush's and McCain's build Mexico part II. Bwa ha ha ha... Wall Street goes belly up, the Fed tries to use stop gap measures, and you watch your investments sink.

Actually, I won't get a refund, as I don't pay taxes now that I am retired. (I don't make enough). Something that seems to get lost in all this is that for example, my youngest son got a much better deal after the Bush tax cuts, and he sure ain't rich. Everything works on percentage, so of course, rich people get more dollars cut than poorer working class people do. But, hey! The only classless societies are all slaves, except for the pigs who are more equal than anyone else. (Not talking about the police!)

PS. A big factor is that I simply don't believe Obama when he says only the rich are going to be taxed more. If he gets his way, a whole lot of people are going to find out they are a lot richer than they thought they were.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galveston1

The only classless societies are all slaves, except for the pigs who are more equal than anyone else. (Not talking about the police!)

---

Pigs wearing lipstick. :)

Donald_23 on sept you stated " H. Clinton is telling the world he would be the better choice"
Then on Sept 18th you said "she silently implied she is the better choice"
Does this mean she feels ESP is the way to talk to the world? Just bypass the press and go straight to ESP? Faster and cheaper I guess..

As to who will be paying more taxes, My question, how are we going to pay off an 11 trillion debt without raising taxes on everyone. I guess we could devalue to dollar to the point where 11 trillion dollars has no value. If I rember we pay about 18% of our taxes just to pay interest on the debt we now have, let alone the extra 1 trillion we are getting ourselves into over the current crises. I mean isn't it kind of silly asking who might pay more when the truth is we ALL will.

Any astute observer accepting the candidates proposals as is, acknowledge that John McCain will do what the Pubs have done consistently in the past and that is provide tax breaks for the wealthier. How McCain and Obama will change your tax bill - Jun. 11, 2008

Well, Bobby, maybe. But I know some time card punchers that are better off since the Bush tax cuts.

Yes. But they don't have to punch cards... they are called CEO's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galveston1

Well, Bobby, maybe. But I know some time card punchers that are better off since the Bush tax cuts.

---

What about all the card punchers in the automotive industry? Thousands are being laid off. I doubt you know more "card punchers" doing good than the amount of workers laid off.

Obama is getting a little tougher:

To sum every thing up, the demoractic party has shown the world that it's time for adult supervision in the white house. Let admitt it "McCain is full of Sugar Honey Ice Tea" The debates bluntly show us that, but we need reform and change.