Um, those subtitles clearly aren't what he says. Listen to it with headphones on.

I'm a huge Obama supporter, I've worked for him.

But this is nonsense. He clearly says something to the effect of "Those people must are sh*tting in the whitehouse. How would you like to see numbers like that"

Why aren't we talking about the real issue? What the heck was Carville thinking when he bought that hat?

Posted at May 2, 2008 1:24 PM in response to Hillary: Tuesday's Voting Will Be A "Game Changer"

I'm not sure what you mean Otto, Obama's base is as strong now as it has ever been. He took over 90% of the PA black vote, and he won every group under the age of 40 (is that correct or was it 35?) He won amongst highly educated voters as well.

Just because the last primary was in a state chock full of poor, aging, blue collar Democrats (Hillary's base, which are demographics that have been shrinking). Doesn't in any way suggest his "facade" is crumbling. It means his traditional base in this primary was smaller than it has been in other states.

Posted at April 23, 2008 8:28 PM in response to Obama and McGovern

Yes Buggeroff, because of affirmative action it is impossible to know how capable black people are. And I suppose that because of white racism we can't tell how capable white people are either? I dont think we can trust anyone! So lets just guess and make up some bullsh*t narrative that rationalizes me voting for the candidate I'm most instinctively comfortable with.

You're an idiot.

Posted at April 18, 2008 8:44 AM in response to Tonight On Colbert: Obama, Clinton and Edwards

We had this happen in my congressional district with Linda Stender. I can't count the number of times I heard the ridiculous "Linda Stender is a spender" line in my socially liberal fiscally conservative North Jersey district. The incumbent won, I'm not sure the ads were at all a factor as I don't think we've elected a democratic congressman in 40 years (my town had a run of not electing a Democrat for mayor for something like 80 years).

Posted at April 11, 2008 9:06 AM in response to New NRCC Ad Makes Fun Of Dem Candidate's Name

I'm not sure I agree with this analysis in general. For one, Edwards pulled in 18% of the vote which is the 2nd highest percentage he received this election. So it seems as though that should be excluded if Iowa and New Hampshire are excluded as well.

There are also other perfectly sound reasons to see why a place like New Jersey voted for Hillary Clinton, she's a significant figure in New York City, where many of us New Jerseyans go to work every day. There are an awful lot of Clinton fans around here, and I would say that this area isn't much less of a "home turf" as NY is.

Places like Ohio and New Jersey and PA also (this is purely based on my own observation) have a tendency to favor establishment figures, while states like Vermont and Minnesota tend to favor insurgent style candidacies.

Certainly the racial dynamics are very important, but I think that it's relatively minor in the great scheme of things

After all, isn't it most telling that of the 33 states selected for this chart, Obama has only lost 8 of them?

Posted at April 3, 2008 12:53 AM in response to Obama & The Dynamic Whose Name Must Not Be Spoken

So you're upset that Democrats are nominating the former head of the Harvard Law Review, a professor of constitutional law, and a career politician at the state and recently national level, while you voted for George Bush TWICE? And somehow we're the ones who are guilty of voting for incompetence?

You're either joking or ridiculous.

Posted at March 31, 2008 9:55 AM in response to Rasmussen: McCain Edging Both Dems In New Jersey

I dont see any reason for her to drop out. Whether or not she has a good chance of winning, she owes it to her (large number of) supporters to keep going until it's clear there is no chance of winning at all, or there is so much pressure from inside the party that she thinks it's better for her carrier or future to drop out.

But that's not the case right now. She's been more restrained in her rhetoric lately (as i think it got pretty out of control). And I think she's positioning herself to be able to bow out gracefully if she doesnt have a great showing in PA

Posted at March 28, 2008 12:33 PM in response to Obama-Supporter Patrick Leahy Calls On Hillary To Drop Out Of Race

Also, I said nothing of the political value of having him endorse. Hillary will surely benefit from the endorsement, as Obama did Kennedy.

That doesn't change my opinion of any of the 4

Posted at March 19, 2008 12:44 PM in response to Jack Murtha Endorses Hillary

Don't make a blanket statement about Obama supporters because I think Murtha is a hack.

My family lives in PA and have gone to some lengths to try and build opposition to Murtha over the last 5 years. Long before I was an active supporter of Obama. So don't write people off so quickly.

I don't think particularly highly of Ted Kennedy either. I think he's only slightly less of a hack than Murtha.

Posted at March 19, 2008 12:42 PM in response to Jack Murtha Endorses Hillary

Because Murtha's the Democratic King of Pork!

Why on earth would he want a president who was in favor of major ethics reform? Murtha IS a hack, someone who uses his position to funnel money into PA.

His endorsement is simply based on who he thinks will keep the taps on and the money flowing. He doesn't really care about the war.

Posted at March 19, 2008 1:13 AM in response to Jack Murtha Endorses Hillary