mrdeadlier - 01/11/08 11:04
Is that Feathers that Doogie is riding?

fellyconnelly - 01/11/08 09:43
oh... my...

planet unicorn HEY!

jason - 01/11/08 08:20
His character in Harold and Kumar was a riot.

fellyconnelly - 01/08/08 22:02
intelligent media? hahaha silly james. that is the craziest thing i ever did hear!

brit - 01/08/08 20:38
looks like Hillary may have the edge! 40% at the last count

james - 01/08/08 19:41
Mr.Mike: we confuse too easily about what? I forgot what we were talking about. ^_^

Jason: Yahoo does post only relevant news, so it must be important then. And you are right, there is plenty to hate Hillary for without going into the fact she has a vulva.

Joshua: that was your answer to the last question, right?

Peter: Oh ya, I wouldn't want just any old black man or woman elected any more than I would want any old white person elected. Which is why this whole talk of race and gender is silly.

metalpeter - 01/08/08 19:20
Are you saying No to both or to what question there where two of them.

President wise I think that the country would vote for someone black and or a women but it would have to be the right one. I think that before all the trouble Colin Powell would have had a chance. He looks black but is still light skined, he was well educated and a miltary general he would have at least been a good VP. The first two people I will mention aren't in politics but a lot of whites who hate blacks still like them Oprah and Bill Cosby (granted not like when he was on his show but still). If we in this country had presidents who are like the ones on TV and in the movies who have a spine and don't do favors for the people who got them elected then our country would be much better. Lets assume that we could get someone like that though with our flawed system. Then lets say there was a real David Palmer (from 24) he would win just like he did on the show.

I think America has been ready for intelligent media and Media used to be that way. The thing is that now news programs and written news is all about the profit. I'm not saying profit shouldn't be important but it shouldn't be a factor in the news. So many things are sound bites or they aren't in depth because that requires time and if someone isn't interested in that thing then they will flip the channel (or at least that is how it is precieved). The news is about statements and sound bites and if you don't agree you are an idiot . I know the news is just supposed to facts and then there are editorals and those two are seperate and then some places people can comment with there thoughts about what was said also. But those bias should be left out of how the news is reported or the story should be told twice by two different people. An easy example of this is sports. Most stations show the highlights that they think are important that tell the story. But often in hockey they don't show the big saves. Or in football they don't show the drive that is about to win the game for the other team where the gust of wind makes the ball fall stright to the ground and the field goal is missed. If you where watching the game the big time saves are sometimes a bigger story and most exciting part of the game and during the field goal you are praying to the whom ever you prey to that the ball hooks to the left. Now if they are leaving that stuff out of sports imagine what get left out of the stories we hear and don't hear about.

joshua - 01/08/08 18:24
The answer is no!

jason - 01/08/08 16:39
And, I should also say, calling Hillary "butch" or "too feminine" really is not necessary, let alone calling someone a lesbo as a pejorative. Yuck.

Of course, the things that people already know about her, well....there ain't much scrubbing it. Attack her for those things, not because of a wrinkled face or because she shed some tears one day.

jason - 01/08/08 16:32
Ironic how I just read your question after surfing past Yahoo, where on the front page they tell us Victoria Beckham is on Mr. Blackwell's worst dressed list. Ouch!

mrmike - 01/08/08 16:32
Nah, we confuse too easy.

Seriously, well said. One of the folks I work with insists on listening to Bauerle, who seriously wouldn't shut the fuck up about the fact that the schedule, the sleeplessness of campaign got to her briefly. I'm sure all the manly men collapse like lawn furniture as well.

joshua - 01/08/08 18:47
It became everybody's message because it worked. Now we have politicians arguing about who is more an agent of change. If I didn't know better I would ask what the fuck gives.

I'm actually stunned by the fact that Obama managed to trump Hillary with the black vote in Iowa. The Clintons have taken the black vote for granted pretty much forever so I suppose she was ripe for the picking, but nevertheless the early indications were that Barack wasn't "black enough" for a lot of people. I think SC will be intriguing and if the vote is now swaying like you say it is Hillary's swan song may be the day of the SC primary.

As for Edwards - he's done. He is merely picking over Hillary's corpse at the moment.

As for "change," while what you say at the moment is true (its a buzzword driving the Dems at the moment) the election will eventually focus on substantive issues which I guarantee will have to have some sort of definition if Obama or anyone else expects to get elected. This was the ABB crowd's downfall in 2004. To your point though, in 2004 when President Bush was re-elected, many voters suggested that likeability and "moral values" were integral to who they chose. Barack Obama will not be able to rely solely on spouting rhetoric about change all the way to the White House. Eventually he will have to answer questions he doesn't have good answers for and somewhere Hillary Clinton will be cackling... because that is who she is. Now will people stop arguing with me about that? =D

james - 01/08/08 12:02
Josh: Obama won more black votes than Clinton did in Iowa. The Clinton's were very good to black Americans in their administration and Obama did not seem very electable at first. But now the black vote is swinging to him at a very fast rate. New polls in SC, where blacks make up nearly half the population, Obama has gone to a commanding lead in the polls.

It is horribly the way democrats are treating other democrats, but that is the name of the game. Clinton is suddenly Bush-lite. Obama is a swaddled babe who doesn't know NAFTA from NAMBLA. And Edwards... well, Edwards has always been a greasy pretty-boy trial lawyer whose working class appeal is anchored only in his miner father, and not his multi-million dollar home and hundred dollar hair cuts.

And the hope and change rhetoric. This election is not about policy, it is about change. Hillary is running like Al Gore did against Bush. There is a sense of entitlement, a sense that her being right should overwhelm Obama's message. Looking down at Bush didn't get Al elected and it wont get Hillary elected either. Notice how after Iowa everyone's message became Obama's messege?

brit - 01/08/08 12:00
Hilary get more support from blacks who are registered to vote, they are hardcore democrats and have voting patterns similar to democrats of other ethnicity. The ones that aren't registered are an unknown quantity in terms of voting behavior which is why he will be appealing to them.

He has pretty much the same stance as the rest of the candidates only he is fresh and wildly charismatic so he is using that to get through the primaries, it will be at this point that he reveals his 'not much different but change where change is due approach' and he will debate the Republicans...be patient....

I don't see the problem in playing to cult to win, after all, at some point he will potentially have to show his leadership and if he fucks ups terribly they will kick him out of office...electoral elasticity is a great democratic invention

joshua - 01/08/08 10:47
Hillary gets more support from blacks than Sen. Obama does, which is mystifying to me. As to Obama's electability, I think that voters should not confuse response to a cult of personality with electability. Right now Barack Obama is saying fairly little, and while I loathe to admit to Hillary being right about anything, she is right about the fact that Barack Obama won't survive without answering tough questions. "Voting for change" is nothing but sloganeering and I'm not really amused with it. I think Barack Obama is faaaarrrr too green to be President of the United States - by far the least qualified of the candidates. He's an inspiring speaker and has a great story to tell, but I'm not interested in the BS - I want to hear him debate Republicans (or even Democrats...) on issues like immigration, GWOT, healthcare, the economy and the like. If I'm wrong about my assertion that being POTUS is too far above Barack Obama's head he just may earn my vote, but I'm not interested in the melodramatic references to "hope" and "change" right now. I like the fact that Obama is optimistic but I need more substance from him.

To be honest the most amusing thing to me thus far is listening to Obama supporters treat Hillary Clinton... well... the same way the GOP has for 15 years. I've never seen so many lefties accuse her of being dishonest, untrustworthy, bitchy, self-serving and nakedly ambitious before.

I'm not really inspired by any of the GOP candidates and have a feeling that I probably won't be, but right now I'm never been more open to a third party candidate.

brit - 01/07/08 23:50
no, there was a group started to try and get him to run but I think Al is quite right in thinking, "I've won an Oscar, an Emmy a noble peace prize, and been the Vice President of the United States... so I could carry on being adored or run for President and be vilified if it all goes to shit"...plus, the pay is shit!

jenks - 01/07/08 23:29
yeah, my parents are pretty big-time republicans, so I was surprised when mom said she likes obama. but I think even they are admitting that things need to change. But she hates hates hates hillary. She kinda likes McCain. Kinda, not really, sorta maybe. But admits that huckabee and romney are so wack that she might have to cross party lines. GASP!

p.s. I know I live under a rock and I don't know as much as I should about politics and current affairs. But is Al Gore even in the picture at all?! I didn't think he was.... but lately I've been seeing all these pro-Gore bumper stickers.

james - 01/07/08 21:56
Obama is very electable. He performs better in polls against every other GOP candidate in the field. HIlly on the other hand gets her ass handed to her by McCain and is really, really close in numbers with Mike "I seriously have nothing going for me except I hate gays, abortions, and Darwin" Huckabee.

On national polls Obama just tied Hillary who has consistently been 20 points ahead of him. This is frickin exciting, exciting stuff.

brit - 01/07/08 20:50
people are right to think that he is unelectable based on polling in every presidential election since FDR, however, the complacency is misplaced because no one candidate has ever mobilized African Americans and the young in a way that he looks capable of doing (run to the base, mobilize the undecideds...it's almost impossible). Given that the young and African Americans famously don't tend to vote and we have seen both groups engaged in caucasses and primaries which they even more famously turn a blind eye to combined with the help of what I am sure will be an enormous ground swelling registration push amongst these groups by the DNC if he wins the nomination you are potentially adding another twenty per cent (pissed off) electorate who will swing Blue. Also, Obama is a Conservative Democrat, sure he is socially more to the left but I am certain there will be massive emphasis on his Senate voting record to sure up the moderate and slightly off center voters. I am so fricking excited I can barely waits The only problem is John BS 'I'm a maverick..please don't look at my Conservative voting record' McCain but the people won;t be fooled again...will they?

jenks - 01/07/08 20:33
yeah, my mom just told me "i like obama... but I doubt he's electable"
I told her he's way more electable than she realizes, I think.

brit - 01/07/08 20:28
I like Hillary but unfortunately she is finding out that America is more sexist than it is racist. They want a strong, decisive and clinical president but when she acts that way they call her a bitch...they want to see compassion but when she shows it she is accused of being weak and overemotional. Also, she gets mad too easily in the debates and has a tendency to shout back at people like she cannot quite fathom how they had the impunity to question her at all. A sense of entitlement and extremely good qualifications do not a president make I'm afraid and the bandwagon plus cohort effect that Obama seems to be establishing has enormous potential to derail her. I would be beyond excited at the prospect of an Obama/Huckabee race (not that it will happen) but, with the rest of the world watching, The US people would be forced to choose between a well spoken, intelligent African American and an evangelical nut job...people who have never voted would be mobilized on both sides and the results would be an unpredictable clash of the two basic ideologies that shape this nation....like lord of the rings or star wars, good Vs evil, never fails to be a box office smash...I can but dream.

james - 01/04/08 19:26
He is only half black, so you could go back if you had a really good lawyer. But Barack is the most handsome presidential candidate since Martin Van Buren. Meow!

fellyconnelly - 01/04/08 19:21
haha yes (e:libertad)!

libertad - 01/04/08 18:21
Once we go black will we never go back?

fellyconnelly - 01/04/08 09:45
looks like we are about to have a black president huh?

james - 01/03/08 17:10
It is just wrong for IA and NH to always go first. I like the rotating regional model best, that way Californians and New Yorkers can continue to influence politics with their money and not necessarily their vote. A dem first primary in Wyoming would be good television. I bet Fred Phelps would be available to picket. ^_^

I love the Daily Show. I think it is great that people get their news from parody news than not at all. I am a news junky, but I can't watch Wolf Blitzer for more than a minute without throwing up in my mouth. Parody news makes it accessible. Not ideal, but works for me.

My point with the mentioning GWB's win in Iowa was that a very, very small number of people decided who would be president next. Week field of candidates or not, it is still a tiny corner of America that becomes king makers, and that is undemocratic. Again, I mention the rotating regional primary system as a more democratic alternative.

Iowa Dems have picked the candidate 6/9 times. Undecided may have had more votes in '72 and '76 but undecided didn't win, just came in first. So, my numbers turned that into a victory.

joshua - 01/03/08 16:44
I'm ok with Iowa having the first caucus. Otherwise these flyovercountryphobic politicians would be tempted to simply ignore 2/3s of the population and anything between San Fran and New York. In a weird way Iowa and NH preserve balance that is absolutely essential, ESPECIALLY for Democrats.

Not knowing who John F-ing Kerry was is no crime for Iowans - the ABB (anybody but Bush) crowd was pervasive throughout Democratic circles that year. The Daily Show crowd are now the vast majority of young Democrat voters. Getting news from a comedy show is sort of like giving your kids heavily sweetened yogurt in tubes (ever seen Gogurt?) and pretending that you've fed your kids nutritional food.

GOP Iowans correctly picked GWB in 2000, but you've neglected to mention who he was running against. He was the weakest of a group of weak candidates and ran against the likes of Steve Forbes, Alan Keyes and Gary Bauer. At the time he was the obvious front runner so I don't think it was any surprise. For Democrats, the only candidate that was correctly picked via majority and became the eventual President in the past 35 years was Bill Clinton - the Dems in the state have rarely correctly picked the eventual winner in the general election. Even Jimmah Carter was beat out by 11 points by the collective "undecided" vote in 1976. Also take into consideration in all of this hypothetical chat that in general over the past 35 years Democrats have rarely won the general election and to suggest that had Iowa chosen differently that some of the elections may have been different is wildly speculative.