Whoever gets in has got to be an improvement on Bush. They can’t be worse can they?

I couldn’t put in print what I truely think of NI politicians and the local electorate. I wasn’t raised here and often live elsewhere. Politics here is the politics of fear and ingrained hatred and mistrust. You can put all sorts of gloss on it but that is what it boils down to.

What I said about Bush was, “that he had the best education that money can buy.” In these parts that could be construed that his qualifications were bought rather than earned! Of course the young should get whatever education and training they can.

Dread

On health care I think that the Health Service in Britain and many other European Countries are not bad. Fall ill or if you are in an accident you get treated no question. If you have kidney failure you will get dialysis three times a week every week. No worry no stress it is there. This is one area where I am glad to see proper provision for all. I may argue about efficiently and how it is delivered but not the basic principle.

A repeat of Chicago 68 would be highly entertaining. Not getting nominated is the least of the problems for the acolytes. They could blame that on the selection being rigged and stamp off in righteous indignation. Worse would be for Obama to be nominated and then be tore apart in the Presidential race, or for him to be elected and prove either useless or insincere and a real disappointment.

And this will be the reason why many of the big insurance companies may favour Obama as the Democratic Candidate not in the hope that he will win but on the greater probability that he could lose against McCain in the electoral college vote .

Based on the results so far those traditional Republican States would have 216 Electoral College votes (ECV’s) Democrats 183 ECV’s if these states go as expected . The 12 swing States account for 142 ECV’s .

Assuming all the primary States so far voted for Democratic candidates only – Obama would have 247 ECV’s and Clinton 273 ECV’s

When we subtract the definite Republican ECV States from both Obama and Clinton based on the primary results to date Obama’s ECV’s would be down to 120 and Clinton’s to 202 . Reason for Obama losing out more here is that he won many of his primaries in traditionnally Republican States -These States will vote McCain in November .

When we look at the 12 swing States, again based on the Dem Primary results Obama would win 57 ECV’s and Clinton 85 ECVs . This would leave Clinton with 287 potential ECV’s against Obama’s 177.

On balance the Democratic party would do better to choose Clinton over Obama based on a purely ECV approach . In the above exercise I have assumed Clinton wins the Pennsylvania primary.

The States of Florida, Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania with a total of 85 Electoral College votes between them will be absolutely critical in this election . This is why the Democrats now seem to be favouring re votes or some solution which does not antagonise or alienate the potential democratic vote in Florida and Michigan .

Obama would do well to settle for VP on this occassion and hope to go again later with a few years of hopefully ‘recognised’ experience under his belt . McCain’s men will hope to defeat Obama in Florida , Ohio and Pennsylvania and that is probably all they will need to ‘steal’ the next election . It’s conceivable with Obama as candidate he could do a Gore i.e win the plurality of votes but still lose the Electoral college . With Clinton that looks less likely IMO.

It comes down to a couple of things… First, speed-reading, believe it or not, was one of the educational fads in play when I was in middle-school. Secondly, your implied insult (the average American news-paper is written on the sixth-grade level, if you’re lucky…) has been noted.

I work as a contractor in government funded healthcare. The office is awash with papers that get passed around. Between the style of writing and my background, most of the papers are a quick read.

Olberman prefaced his piece with reference to a couple of people who do apparently pay attention to what he says? And there are one or two repubs. who might disagree about the New York papers frothing at the mouth.

Joe public’s viewing numbers may or may not be relevant or important but who really watches these shows closely are other networks and journalists and professional punditry and the campaigns themselves and they take their cues from each other. So they have influence even if we find that influence a tad lowbrow and yawn worthy.

Not really — Olbermann is pretty small beer, ratings-wise and influence-wise — hell, MSNBC is small beer around the clock. Even Fox, the cable news ratings gorilla (by audience numbers), doesn’t break two million sets of eyes on any given night. Olbermann’s audience tunes in to hear what they believe affirmed, not because he is some important opinion-maker.

latcheeco: “All the t.v news here is either preachy or inane and often both. O.K. maybe not PBS and Fox ”

Eh. They all preach, some are just subtler than others… except PBS, which alternately begs and whines.

latcheeco: “Where are these bias free organs you speak of? (other than slugger:) ”

Oh, they’re not bias free — the sources I prefer just aren’t frothing at the mouth, ala Olbermann. I’m usually good for about six news-papers a day (two NY tabloids (referring more to format than content), two national broad-sheets and two local broad-sheets), along with a few national and internation news sites. The trick isn’t to be bias free, it is to find off-setting biases.

latcheeco: “Your point on the long race being a media business opportunity is fair enough but I think the individuals still want to be Woodward and Bernstein. ”

Thank you, latcheeco… the perfect segue…

I completely agree that they want to grow up to be W&B;, but with one proviso… W&B;didn’t set out to topple a president or change the world or any other such foolishness or hubristic fantasy. They set out to get a story and the story they got toppled a president and changed the world. I think today’s “journalists” don’t understand the difference.

All the t.v news here is either preachy or inane and often both. O.K. maybe not PBS and Fox Where are these bias free organs you speak of? (other than slugger:)
Your point on the long race being a media business opportunity is fair enough but I think the individuals still want to be Woodward and Bernstein.

No — I prefer information to polemic. Olbermann rants, he doesn’t inform.

Yeah, but do you want your healthcarerought to you by the same people who dreamed up the USPS and the IRS? Likewise, access to a waiting list does not constitute access to healthcare. As someone who works on the finance side of government provided healthcare, as much as I like the notion of guaranteed employment for life, it’s not a winning idea.

Crataegus: “Obama’s one difficult press conference where he was ask a few questions about Rezko gave a very real indication as to his lack of ability to address difficulties on the hoof. In my opinion he is not up to the job. ”

He’s already had it, slinking off whilst whimpering that he’d answered, “like, eight questions already.”

The problem is that the media is drinking the kool-aid and Obama running aground or melting down kills the race and no few of these news outlets rely on the interest in the elections — the more competative the election, the more political ads they sell.

Crataegus: “His style is very much like one of those born again preachers. His following really is like blind faith, and no one is more zealous than the newly converted. Boy are they going to be disappointed. ”

The possibility of Chicago ’68 exists as a non-zero proposition…

Your point on Bush is good but the trend is generally the opposite else we wouldn’t have our kids go to university would we?

Mick as regards Hil’s pants she may just be waiting to meet the right girl;)

When the media get anything real on Obama they’d bury him : its about the money and pullitzers for them and not idealism,and I know I’m biased but I still think it’s true.

Mick its not universal at the point of need its universally paying insurance there’s a difference.
The war arguement is a lost cause crat.

Dread did you watch Oberman savage her last night?

Nothing wrong with a few tears, a laugh, a smile or a frown.

It is the lies, half truths and misrepresentations that really annoy me.

Obama didn’t vote for the war, well no he couldn’t so plain misleading. He will bring the troops home; no he won’t. The NAFTA gaff, an admission of deliberately misleading.

Rezko was bone headed; well someone selling you a piece of land for considerably less than they paid for it is called something else where I come from.

Exelon Corporation (nuclear-power) is Barack Obama’s fourth largest patron. I wonder who helped to vote down an amendment that would have ended loan guarantees for power-plant operators?

None of them are angels but the degree of hypocrisy surrounding Obama is equalled only by the amount of blind faith placed in him. It is a tragedy.

Mick HallDread

I don’t disagree with you.

I was looking at some Obama clips trying to comprehend what it is about him that appeals to people.

His style is very much like one of those born again preachers. His following really is like blind faith, and no one is more zealous than the newly converted. Boy are they going to be disappointed.

WILL LIE FOR VOTES

You can bring fella to college, but you an’t make him think. A sheepskin is nice and a good start, but its not the keys to the kingdom.

Also, completing a course of education does not necessarily make a fellow completely prepared for their chosen profession — physicians have internships and residencies, lawyers need to pas the BAR exam and politicians don’t get to start at the top.

Crataegus: “There are several problems that I have with the current choice. Firstly none of them set my sole on fire.”

Blacked cajun fish, or a hot-foot?

Crataegus: “Secondly there really is no over arching vision of where the USA needs to go. Repeating the word change is about as useful as chanting religious text. ”

Less, actually… most religious texts say what you should and shouldn’t do…

Crataegus: “Comparing them with people who will also run or who are likely to run shows a distinct lack of any real vision, purpose or idealism. Nader, Ron Paul, McKinney…. Not saying that these people are the answer just that you can be in no doubt that what drives them is a purpose, a belief. These people really do want change. ”

Nader is a self-promoter of the first water who is more interested in Nader than any ancillary good he does (or doesn’t) accomplish. McKinney is just a whack-job. Paul… I wish Paul wasn’t that far out there and attracting folks even further out than he is — he is a wee bit like Pat Buchannan — half the time he says things that are important and need saying and the other half you want to call the fella in the white coats to take him away.

Crataegus: “I find it hard to believe that a nation can fall for such nonsense as ‘Change, if you are up for it’ and Bob the Builder’s ‘Yes we can.’ What is the average IQ of those who vote? ”

IQ isn’t the problem, or at least not the main one (and I fear it drops with each election).

The problem is the increasing intellectual laziness of the electorate… and, in some cases, the elected.

Crataegus: “It all makes one question Democracy and the unconditional right to vote. ”

Don’t kid yourself… there are conditions.

At the beginning of Bills Presidency she bit off more than she could chew on Health and withdrew from the fray hurt, but she must have learned a great deal and to her credit is up for a rematch.

Whilst I was born into a world where there was no NHS/etc, I have lived most of my life under the protective umbrella of free health care at the point of need, and I cannot imagine the hardships and worry one must suffer when this does not exist, especially if you have a young family.

Hilary is the only candidate who has a long history of fighting for a decent system of health care and this is the reason why in my heart I favor here.

[she also understand the damage bills private part did to his Presidency; and say what you will about her she is a woman who manages to keep her knickers firmly pulled up;)

And there I was thinking that G W Bush had the best education that money could buy.

BA from Yale and MBA Harvard Business School.

Point is I wouldn’t put too much faith in qualifications.

There are several problems that I have with the current choice. Firstly none of them set my sole on fire. Obama is a chancer (NI term for trickster come opportunist}he is probably a dud, there is no real substance and no real scrutiny or testing of him. The press have been a lamentable failure. McCaim is past retirement and all the Vet stuff sits uneasy with me as does some aspects of his character. Not too sure (at all) about him and his war that could last 100 years. Then there is Hillary, very very driven and very focused. Boy does she want to be President.

Secondly there really is no over arching vision of where the USA needs to go. Repeating the word change is about as useful as chanting religious text.

Economics. The economy will dominate the next 4 years and none of them instil any real confidence.

Comparing them with people who will also run or who are likely to run shows a distinct lack of any real vision, purpose or idealism. Nader, Ron Paul, McKinney…. Not saying that these people are the answer just that you can be in no doubt that what drives them is a purpose, a belief. These people really do want change.

I find it hard to believe that a nation can fall for such nonsense as ‘Change, if you are up for it’ and Bob the Builder’s ‘Yes we can.’ What is the average IQ of those who vote?

It all makes one question Democracy and the unconditional right to vote.

I think it was simply a case of his finding it impolite to resist the many women who happened to find him simply irresistable. I expect that like me (and Bill) you also have had to suffer from the same difficulty and thus can afford to be understanding.