I didn’t say that, of course. I said the opposite. But I can see how someone could read the “than than” typo that way, but that also ignores pretty much everything I’ve written about that election! ;)

I liked a lot of what Nader had to say back in 2000. However it was all too clear that his presence in close states would tip the balance. New Hampshire and Florida (hanging chads notwithstanding) were those two states.

You are dead wrong with your claim that more people voted for Bush than for Gore. It was the other way around – Gore out-polled Bush by a large margin. It was only in the ‘College’ that Bush won.

In the case of Kerry and Ohio the numbers do not add up that way. Even if you add the Kerry and Nader vote numbers he still loses to Bush as reported. That was not the case in NH and FL in 2000. Nader clearly made the difference there.

A comment about Edwards – in the primary system, especially with proportional delegates, he can ‘transfer’ his to Obama or Clinton if he scoses. That is not the case in the general election.

And interesting take on democracy, Ben, albeit one openly and profoundly hostile to it. I’m afraid I’ll be compelled to keep that in mind when examing your other judgments.

“Supporter” implies. . .support, as in, if not outright endorsement, at least working towards the same goal. So, by your same logic, John Edwards is surely a Clinton “supporter” (how dare that spoiler syphon off white votes!) or an Obama supporter (how dare that spoler syphon off ‘change’ voters!). Apparently, you’ve joined the Joe Williams club, and are defining terms to your own liking.

Let’s get this straight: I have absolutely no interest in rehashing the same tired arguments of 2000. But it’s fascinating to me that you view the mere existence of an alternative as a fait accompli. How dare he give those who were justifiably disgusted by Gore’s campaign an acceptable third choice!

Yes, we know the sheeple can’t be trusted, don’t we, Ben? After all, fifty million of them voted for Bush. A half-million than than voted for Gore. So it’s obviously Nader’s fault.

Surely Kerry’s loss can be blamed on Nader,too. After all, Kerry lost a key swing state (Ohio) where Nader was running. While math isn’t as convenient, surely the mere fact that Nader was running–and thus give that alternative to voters–is enough to hang that one on him, too.

Perish the thought that we should actually hold voters responsible for their own votes, or care more about votes that were never counted. Nope– It’s all Nader’s fault!! Cue the scary music!

A friend of mine, with generally the same liberal attitudes, could not bring himself to vote for Gore either, so he voted for Bush .

Ben, you might see a doctor about that memory problem.”

No memory problem Rage. Nader, by siphoning off votes in New Hampshire and Florida, helped Bush. That makes him a supporter if Bush; his loud protestations to the otherwise notwithstanding.

You missed nothing, other than MH’s fantasies. Like many other teens who are often not as careful drivers as they should be, Laura Bush had a traffic accident at 17. A person died, a person she knew and may have had a previous brief relationship with; the “‘ex-boyfriend’ angle is pure fantasy, with no evidence in support.

MH attempts to argue that is the same as a drunk Senator taking his mistress (date, hoped-for grope for the night, take your pick) off a bridge in his car, and disappearing for 10 hours before he even reported the accident.

In one, local police filed no charges; at the time, the young girl was a nobody, and the father of the victim, a witness, did not seek charges – he recognized it as it was: a tragedy.

In the other, a connected and powerful political family (who gifted the Senate seat to the youngest of the family) got him off with a kiss on the cheek.

Yea, MH, they’re just alike. No difference. How could I have been so wrong. I bow to your superior moral judgement. Yadda, yadda, yadda.

Yeesh.

Both are tragedies. One is clearly an accident, and at least in Kansas is not a criminal act (a criminal act requires criminal intent, at least gross negligence); the other is at best gross negligence and at worst knowingly reckless, IS a crime times 2 (both the drunk driving and the failure to report) and would in most states be t least negligent manslaughter, were he not connected.

And both are, today, largely irrelevent. Why MH and his ilk attempt to join the two is beyond me.

There was nothing objectionable this when I posted it a bit ago. Why remove it?

Well what I was saying is that there is no small number of progressive voters troubled with Obama’s respect for Ronald Reagan. Here is a sample:

Published on Thursday, January 17, 2008 by Democracy Now!
Obama Appears to Laud Reagan for Confronting 1960-70s “Excesses”

In campaign news, Senator Barack Obama is coming under criticism for appearing to slight the civil rights and feminist movements while expressing admiration for former President Ronald Reagan. In an interview with the editorial board of the Reno Gazette, Obama lauded Reagan’s challenge to what Obama called the “excesses” of the 1960s and 1970s.

Senator Barack Obama: “I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path, because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown, but there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people—he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.”

Obama did not specify what he believes those “excesses” were. But Reagan is widely credited with leading a rightwing backlash against the gains of the civil rights and feminist movements that preceded his 1980 election.

And like I said before it was deleted for no reason, there is no small number of progressives who must be convinced Obama is not in fact a Republican who was afraid to run as one because he knew THAT party could never elect a black man for President.

Laura had a passanger in her car. This happened at NIGHT. It is doubtful that Laura would become a “suicide driver” even if she were alone. It is even more doubtful that she would be willing to sacrifice the life of her friend, as well. It is even more doubtful that she knew, ahead of time, who was in the car that she struck, until after the accident occured. (IT WAS DARK OUTSIDE, THIS HAPPENED AT NIGHT!)”
Hell, she’s a Texan, nuff said!

“Good luck with your moral superiority argument, there, ‘GMC70.’”

Obviously, MonkeyHawk, you don’t get it, GMC is morally superior to everyone.

I hope that he represents the Republic crowd for a long time. Sanity might return to this country…

Teddy likes attention.

Obama is not electable among progressives.

An excerpt of his praise for Ronald Reagan and some progressive take:

Published on Thursday, January 17, 2008 by Democracy Now!
Obama Appears to Laud Reagan for Confronting 1960-70s “Excesses”

In campaign news, Senator Barack Obama is coming under criticism for appearing to slight the civil rights and feminist movements while expressing admiration for former President Ronald Reagan. In an interview with the editorial board of the Reno Gazette, Obama lauded Reagan’s challenge to what Obama called the “excesses” of the 1960s and 1970s.

Senator Barack Obama: “I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path, because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown, but there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people—he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.”

Obama did not specify what he believes those “excesses” were. But Reagan is widely credited with leading a rightwing backlash against the gains of the civil rights and feminist movements that preceded his 1980 election.

I have to agree. Obama has “made it”. SO he is ready to abandon those who have not to the tender mercies of he and the other haves and have mores.

Why doesn’t he run as a Republican if he wants to be President?

Oh yeah. He’s black. And the GOP does not treat blacks equally let alone with respect.

I will not savage Obama as the GOP does fringe candidate Ron Paul. But I will say that there are those on the left who will not vote for a pandering sell out.

Laura rammed and killed a jilting boy friend?

Sorta explains who she eventually married.

Laura had a passanger in her car. This happened at NIGHT. It is doubtful that Laura would become a “suicide driver” even if she were alone. It is even more doubtful that she would be willing to sacrifice the life of her friend, as well. It is even more doubtful that she knew, ahead of time, who was in the car that she struck, until after the accident occured. (IT WAS DARK OUTSIDE, THIS HAPPENED AT NIGHT!)

Polls have Billary up, but have they been right in any of the primaries?

Believe in the undecided polling data as a truth! People can flip their minds in a day or in line to vote!

Seattle Times endorsed Obama
http://www.seattletimes.com

Oregon Herald enthusiastically want Barack
http://www.oregonherald.com

San Jose Mercury News says Go Obama Go
http://www.mercurynews.com

Sacramento Bee buzzes for BHO
http://www.sacbee.com

San Fransisco Chronicle wants Barack Hussein Obama for President.
http://www.sfgate.com

Check those sites and read the Opinions. That’s a nice list of Pacific Coast well known newspapers.

LA Times after 34 years is finally doing Presidential endorsements for both sides they said.

http://www.latimes.com

San Diego Tribune hasn’t chosen yet either.

http://www.signonsandiego.com

“Running a stop sign is a traffic infraction, not a crime (yes, there is a difference). And an accidental death is just that – an accidental death.”

Sort of like driving off a dangerous bridge, as have many before-and-since the Ted Kennedy incident?

“Unless there are some aggregious circumstances (i.e., being drunk and reckless), running a stop sign generally does not lead to a prosecution (aside from the traffic ticket) even if a death results.”

And a just-jilted girlfriend might not be considered as some aggregious circumstance when the just-jilting boyfriend gets T-Boned at a familiar intersection? It’s hard to believe, since the accident happened in what was a familiar neighborhood fopr her, that she simply didn’t know about the stop sign.

Which reduces “GMC70’s” defense of Laura Bush to this:

“SHE IS NOT A MURDERER!!! SHE IS A MAN-SLAUGHTERER!!!”

Good luck with your moral superiority argument, there, “GMC70.”

That basically sums it up. One more things about Kennedy, though: he long since ‘fessed up to his wrongdoing (the affair, if there was one, wasn’t really our business anyway–unless you buy lunatic-fringe arguments about an assassination).

If justice wasn’t served, you can lay that outcome at his door. Yeah, money and power can buy differential justice. But if you’re going to go down that road, Bush and Cheney should be in prison now .

And for my money, I would be more concerned about, say, the young man serving an 25-year prison sentence for a crime he clearly did not commit.

Running a stop sign is a traffic infraction, not a crime (yes, there is a difference). And an accidental death is just that – an accidental death. Unless there are some aggregious circumstances (i.e., being drunk and reckless), running a stop sign generally does not lead to a prosecution (aside from the traffic ticket) even if a death results. At least in Kansas.

MH’s historical revisionism notwithstanding.

Ben, you might see a doctor about that memory problem.

It’s always seemed to me that it was a tawdry weekend on Martha’s Vinyard. But it was 1969 and there were different rules.

Personal accounts of that party — tawdry as it was — portray it as a bunch of political cads hoping to hop the bones of some sweet young campaign volunteers (which, is not all that uncommon in either political party, even today).

From what I’ve read — not just the Republic Party rants, but personal testimonies — is that Mary Jane Kopechne was a “nice” girl and wasn’t into a 1960s sex party. She got drunk and found a car outside to sleep it off and it happened to be Ted Kennedy’s Oldsmobile.

Somebody brought out some pot and Kennedy, ever the drunkard, freaked out and left the party. Yeah, he was probably intoxicated by today’s 0.8 standards. But he wasn’t gonna get involved in *DRUGS!!!* So he left the party.

Hundreds of people have testified that the bridge involved was on an awkward angle, and many full-sober people in daylight have driven off the “Ted Kennedy Bridge” before and since.

If you parse what was, admittedly, a carefully scripted 1969 confession from Ted Kennedy, you’ve got no case whatsoever of all the Republic Party fantasies that have survived for nearly forty years.

If you’re gonna believe all the right-wing fantasies of what happened on Chappaquiddick, there’s always an option that Kennedy drove off the bridge, escaped from his Oldsmobile, went back to the party and someone said, “Omigod, where’s Mary Jane?!”

And that moment could very well have been the first moment Ted had any idea that Kopechne might have been in his car. It, at least, has just as much validity that Laura Lane Welch — fueled by 17-year-old hormones and emotions just might have run that stop sign to crunch the boyfriend who’d just jilted her.

Ultimately, it doesn’t matter to anyone execpt you’re related to Mary Jane or Laura’s boyfriend.

We’ll all think what we think and we’ll probably not change what we think.

The people of Massachusetts have had many opportunites to deal with Ted Kennedy’s real or imagined crimes. They’ve determined it to be an unfortunate accidenct. The people who’ve supported George WMD Bush have determined Laura Bush’s potential vehicular homicide, too, to be an “unfortunate accident.”

So deal with it.

Even the Democratic Party was not willing to nominate Ted Kennedy in 1980. The Democratic Party chose, rather, to support Ted Kennedy’s rise as a major force in the United States Senate.

I recognize how much hate comes from Republic Party activists toward Ted Kennedy. They’re perfectly willing to play out their sexual fantasies as to what happened on Chappaquiddick Island nearly 40 years ago.

But even we die-hard Democrats don’t have the audacity to blame today’s Republic Party advocates for the sins of Richard Nixon. Lord knows, we have the opportunites. But that was then an this is now.

And that’s pretty much why this is gonna be a Democratic year. It’s now and tomorrow… not then and all the Republic Party’s failures… that will decide the election in November.