phillyfan26
Blue Crack Supplier
- Joined
- May 7, 2006
- Messages
- 30,343
Is there anyone out there wondering about the potential Bradley Effect in this election?
2008 U.S. Presidential Campaign Discussion Thread-Part 10.
- Thread starter U2isthebest
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Status
VintagePunk
Blue Crack Distributor
I've read a couple of good articles about it on the fivethirtyeight.com, and they essentially say that the Bradley Effect has been discounted. It also says that statistically, there was a reverse-Bradley Effect taking place in some of the primary states.
Here's a link to entries that talk about it: FiveThirtyEight.com: Electoral Projections Done Right: bradley effect
Those post were simply economic facts from the years they were in office. You can argue all you want about what produced a certain unemployment level, or poverty level during a given administration or a given year, but thats what the average American was dealing with in that year or administration regardless if you think the current President was responsible for that, or some President from decades earlier.
More importantly, numbers on unemployment, GDP growth, Debt as a percentage of GDP, inflation rate, and the poverty rate are the statistics that are usually used determine how well the economy is doing or if the economy is in a recession or a depression. The Stockmarket can impact these statistics, but is not generally used to determine the true economic performance of the country.
Here are the Bush years VS. The Clinton years on the important economic statistics of average annual GDP growth per year, debt as a percentage of GDP per year, inflation rate per year, poverty rate per year, and the unemployment rate per year:
The Average National Federal Debt as a percentage of GDP:
Clinton Years 64.5%
Bush Years 61.9%
Average GDP growth rate:
Clinton Years 5.4%
Bush Years 4.8%
Average Annual Poverty Rate:
Clinton Years 13.3%
Bush Years 12.3%
Average Annual Inflation Rate:
Clinton Years 2.60%
Bush Years 2.69%
Average Annual Unemployment Rate:
Clinton Years 5.21%
Bush Years 5.20%
The average annual poverty rate under W. is the 3rd lowest of any Presidential administration in US history!
toscano
Refugee
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2005
- Messages
- 2,032
Rather than averages which can be terribly misleading, I'd like to see the numbers shown:
What Clinton inherited
What Clinton left/Bush inherited
Where are we now
May be more meaningful
Thats just two points in time 8 years apart. It tells you next to nothing about what on average it was like to live in the United States during those 8 years. The numbers can go up and down do to various crises's and economic booms in just one year.
If your going to accurately look at the economic performance of any President or the condition of the economy while they were President, you have to look at the ENTIRE time they were in office, not just the month they came in and the month they left.
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
i think Obama is going to underperform in Appalachia -- so i'm not convinced that he'll necessarily win OH, and i don't think he'll get WV, and i think PA will be closer than we think.
but i think he may overperform in VA, NC, and GA.
and i think he's actually got FL in the bag -- Charlie Crist has pretty much told McCain to fuck off.
toscano
Refugee
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2005
- Messages
- 2,032
An average doesn't tell me squat, for example if Bush inerited say a 30% debt to GDP ratio and it's in the 90's when he leaves, that could be an average of 60-ish making it seem similar to what Clinton had, but the reality would be that he let it go to hell in a handbasket.
As you correctly point out, there are "other factors" at play in all of this, which kinda makes the task of showing performance just based on these metrics almost impossible, whether using averages or the way I mentioned.
Maybe show a graph of the trend on a monthly basis with extenuating factors/majorly stupid decisions highlighted (9/11, invasion of Iraq, Asian Currency crisis of the mid-90's, etc) in the timeline.
yolland
Forum Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2004
- Messages
- 7,471
I remember that episode...
VintagePunk
Blue Crack Distributor
He even uses a "my friends" in there.
1. Unemployment Rate - If you just take the first month unemployment rate of an 8 year administration and the last month unemployment rate of an 8 year administration, your not going to know SQUAT about what the job market was really like for most of the 8 years of that particular Presidential administration. By just taking the first month and the last month, you can hide multiple recessions or multiple economic booms that would have major impacts on the unemployment rate and job climate. If you really want to know what the unemployment rate or job market was like THROUGH OUT the entire 8 years of a particular administration, you have to look at all the data and take the average.
2. Inflation rate - Again, if you just take the first month of an 8 year administration and take the last month of an 8 year administration, its going to tell you VERY little about the difficulties people experienced from rising prices if there were some years with very high inflation. You could potentially hide the worst inflation rates from the late 1970s within an 8 years period.If Carter had won re-election in 1980 and then you took the inflation rate from the first month in 1977 and compared it to the last month in 1984, you would have NO clue that the country suffered its worst inflation crises during that period of time!
3. GDP Growth Rate - Again, this can go up and down over the course of 8 years. If you were just to take the first month of an 8 year administration and the last month of an 8 year administrations GDP growth rate, your missing several years of info that could involve economic booms or multiple economic recessions.
4. Poverty Rate - Like the 3 above, just taking the first month and the last month of an administration tells you nothing about the hardship many people experienced in the 7 years and 10 months in between those time periods. In order to know what it was like the whole 8 years, you must take the average.
5. National Debt as a Percentage of GDP - While its true that because debt can build up over time, this can be one area where it might make sense to compare the starting point with the end point, but again, the starting point and end points could be influenced by dramatic events at that particular time. To get a real feel for this area's impact on the country and the administrations performance in this area, you need to look at all the years and take the average.
But since you asked for the individual years for the national debt as a percentage of GDP, here they are:
National Federal Debt as a percentage of GDP:
Clinton Years:
1993 66.2%
1994 66.7%
1995 67.2%
1996 67.3%
1997 65.6%
1998 63.5%
1999 61.4%
2000 57.8%
Bush Years:
2001 57.4%
2002 59.7%
2003 62.4%
2004 63.7%
2005 63.8%
2006 64.5%
2007 65.2%
The Average National Federal Debt as a percentage of GDP:
Clinton Years 64.5%
Bush Years 62.4%
The 2008 figures are not in yet. Even when we go into the individual years, we discover that Bush's highest year so far in 2007 of 65.2% is still lower than Clintons first 5 years in office. National Debt as a percentage of GDP went up every year of Clintons first term despite the fact that the country was at peace, there were major cuts in defense spending, and gas prices were relatively low compared to where they are today. Gas prices dropped to their lowest level in history in 1999 in the 2nd to the last year of the Clinton administration helping to fuel the economic boom in the United States which in turn helped to reduce debt as a percentage of GDP.
By contrast, Bush experienced a recession and 9/11 in his first year in office. The country has then been engaged in two of the longest wars in its history, plus having to deal with rising global oil prices, some of the highest in history. Despite all that on Bush's plate, most of his years in office have involved a national debt as a percentage of GDP that was lower than the Clinton years.
Nearly all extended wars in the USA's history have led to an increase of national debt as a percentage of GDP. In 1940, national debt as a percentage of GDP was just 42.4%. By 1946, it was 122% of GDP.
Popmartijn
Blue Crack Supplier
These figures are more interesting. But rather than saying that the average is so important, I place more value on the trend of the debt curve. Yes, Clinton had a higher average debt of GDP %, but he started with a higher debt than Bush ever had and he managed to bring it down. In fact, he managed to bring it down with 8.4 %points during his presidency (comparing the beginning to the end).
Under the Bush presidency, however, the trend of the curve reversed, going up. In fact, the debt went up every year. In those 8 years, Bush managed to undo all the debt reduction that Clinton had achieved. So Bush might have a lower average, but the curve is now going in the opposite direction.
Harry Vest
Refugee
Although I admire both of your knowledge's (is that even a word?) on the subject I feel that I have to intervine and suggest that you both may be on the wrong track here... you keep thowing numbers back and forth instead of comparing "era's" ...there is no doubt in my mind that the Clinton "era" was much better than the Bush "era"... these numbers are too close to constitute a real argument. Again, look at the "era's" in question, the Clinton years were generally better than the Bush years were they not??? And this coming from a not-so-rabid fan of Billary!!!!!!!
What did I do??!?!? 1. The national debt as a percentage of GDP went up every year during Clinton's first term in office.
2. The national debt as a percentage of GDP in 1996 was the highest it had ever been since the 1960s. The national debt as a percentage of GDP was has not been that high in any year under Bush.
3. The issue of debt is the only area where you could argue that looking at the starting point and the end point or the trend might be important. If you want to know what it was like during the each era in terms of unemployment, poverty, inflation, GDP growth, you have to take the average of all the months and years. Just taking the first month and the last month for these economic statistics will tell you very little.
4. During the Clinton Presidency, the country was not involved in any extended wars. The biggest cuts in defense spending took place during this time with the Cold War over and the Soviet Union gone. These are events that Clinton had very little or nothing to do with that allowed for there to finally be a reduction in national debt as a percentage of GDP in his last 4 years in office. A good portion of the economic boom in his last 4 years in office was fueled by the lowest gas prices worldwide in history.
5. By contrast, the Bush administration had to deal with a recession and the 9/11 terrorist attacks in its first year in office. Then there was two of the longest wars in US history to deal with, plus global oil prices rising to their highest level in history. There were multiple crises and issues that Bush had to deal with while in office that Clinton did not. These crises and issues required greater spending. In terms of economic growth, Bush did not have the low oil prices of the late 1990s to help out like Clinton did. In fact, he had the reverse to deal with. Yet, Bush still has the lower average debt as a percentage of GDP than Clinton which is impressive given all that he has had to deal with in his administration.
6. Look at the unemployment, inflation, poverty rate, and GDP growth figures. They are either roughly equal to Clintons average or better.
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
I hope he didn't jinx himself by saying that 
Springsteen, Joel team up to aid Obama
Candidate compares people in singers’ songs to people on campaign trail
The Associated Press
updated 9:42 a.m. ET, Fri., Oct. 17, 2008
NEW YORK - It was “Born to Run” meets “New York State of Mind” — with a little bit of “Hail to the Chief” thrown in for good measure.
Bruce Springsteen and Billy Joel joined forces in a concert to raise money for Barack Obama’s presidential campaign and the Democratic Party on Thursday night. They got a little help from India.Arie, John Legend and Springsteen’s wife, Patti Scialfa, as they tore through the rock legends’ long list of hits at the Hammerstein Ballroom.
When they launched into “Born to Run,” Springsteen said, “This is for the senator.”
As the show concluded, Obama made an appearance onstage. He called the event “a magical evening” and said he wouldn’t ruin it with a long speech. Then he delivered a speech comparing the struggling, everyday people in Joel’s and Springsteen’s songs to the people he’s met on the campaign trail.
He warned supporters not to get overconfident because he leads in the polls.
“Don’t underestimate the capacity of Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Don’t underestimate our ability to screw it up,” Obama said. “I want everybody running scared.”
Obama also offered a new explanation for his decision to seek the White House.
“I was sitting offstage with (his wife) Michelle, and I ... said, ‘Honey, the reason I’m running for president is I can’t be Bruce Springsteen. I can’t be Billy Joel,”’ Obama said.
Springsteen and Joel focused more on music than politics, alternating between each other’s songs — clearly having fun.
Springsteen hugged Joel during “Spirit in the Night,” then ended up laying across the piano as he sang. Joel left the piano and picked up a guitar for “Glory Days.” They even stuck a bit of The Beatles’ “Hard Day’s Night” into the middle of Joel’s song “River of Dreams.”
When Springsteen suggested they slow things down a bit, Joel began banging out a playful version of “Hail to the Chief” in honor of Obama’s presidential hopes.
Nearly 2,000 people attended the “Change Rocks” concert. The cheap seats were $500, but big spenders could shell out $25,000 each.
Springsteen’s song “The Rising” has become an unofficial anthem for Obama’s campaign, often playing when Obama bounds onstage at his rallies. Inspired by 9/11 terrorist attacks, it strikes a defiant tone with lines like: “Sky of longing and emptiness/ Sky of fullness, sky of blessed life/ Come on up for the rising/ Come on up, lay your hands in mine.”
After Obama spoke, the stars closed with another song heard at his rallies, Stevie Wonder’s “Signed, Sealed, Delivered.”
Obama and his wife stayed on stage, clapping, swaying and even bumping hips at one point.
Springsteen, Joel team up to aid Obama
Candidate compares people in singers’ songs to people on campaign trail
The Associated Press
updated 9:42 a.m. ET, Fri., Oct. 17, 2008
NEW YORK - It was “Born to Run” meets “New York State of Mind” — with a little bit of “Hail to the Chief” thrown in for good measure.
Bruce Springsteen and Billy Joel joined forces in a concert to raise money for Barack Obama’s presidential campaign and the Democratic Party on Thursday night. They got a little help from India.Arie, John Legend and Springsteen’s wife, Patti Scialfa, as they tore through the rock legends’ long list of hits at the Hammerstein Ballroom.
When they launched into “Born to Run,” Springsteen said, “This is for the senator.”
As the show concluded, Obama made an appearance onstage. He called the event “a magical evening” and said he wouldn’t ruin it with a long speech. Then he delivered a speech comparing the struggling, everyday people in Joel’s and Springsteen’s songs to the people he’s met on the campaign trail.
He warned supporters not to get overconfident because he leads in the polls.
“Don’t underestimate the capacity of Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Don’t underestimate our ability to screw it up,” Obama said. “I want everybody running scared.”
Obama also offered a new explanation for his decision to seek the White House.
“I was sitting offstage with (his wife) Michelle, and I ... said, ‘Honey, the reason I’m running for president is I can’t be Bruce Springsteen. I can’t be Billy Joel,”’ Obama said.
Springsteen and Joel focused more on music than politics, alternating between each other’s songs — clearly having fun.
Springsteen hugged Joel during “Spirit in the Night,” then ended up laying across the piano as he sang. Joel left the piano and picked up a guitar for “Glory Days.” They even stuck a bit of The Beatles’ “Hard Day’s Night” into the middle of Joel’s song “River of Dreams.”
When Springsteen suggested they slow things down a bit, Joel began banging out a playful version of “Hail to the Chief” in honor of Obama’s presidential hopes.
Nearly 2,000 people attended the “Change Rocks” concert. The cheap seats were $500, but big spenders could shell out $25,000 each.
Springsteen’s song “The Rising” has become an unofficial anthem for Obama’s campaign, often playing when Obama bounds onstage at his rallies. Inspired by 9/11 terrorist attacks, it strikes a defiant tone with lines like: “Sky of longing and emptiness/ Sky of fullness, sky of blessed life/ Come on up for the rising/ Come on up, lay your hands in mine.”
After Obama spoke, the stars closed with another song heard at his rallies, Stevie Wonder’s “Signed, Sealed, Delivered.”
Obama and his wife stayed on stage, clapping, swaying and even bumping hips at one point.
You might be able to make that claim if you were just comparing Clintons last 2 years in office to Bush's entire 8 years in office. But that would not be an accurate or fair comparison.
The facts show that it is a myth that the Clinton years were generally better than the Bush years when it comes to the overall economy.
Lets take a look at the average poverty rate in each era:
Average Annual Poverty Rate:
Clinton Years 13.3%
Bush Years 12.3%
Bush has the 3rd lowest average poverty rate of any President in US history. Yet, according to some liberals, the poor would have been better off in Somalia.
Average GDP growth rate:
Clinton Years 5.4%
Bush Years 4.8%
Yes, Clinton had better GDP growth, but Bush's growth of 4.8% is not far behind and is excellent by historical standards.
Average Annual Inflation Rate:
Clinton Years 2.60%
Bush Years 2.69%
Average Annual Unemployment Rate:
Clinton Years 5.21%
Bush Years 5.20%
Both of these are nearly the same, so it would be a mistake to claim that one era was better than another with respect to jobs and inflation. Both by historical standards are fantastic.
The Average National Federal Debt as a percentage of GDP:
Clinton Years 64.5%
Bush Years 61.9%
I still feel this is remarkable given everything that Bush has had to deal with on his plate. Clinton did not have to deal with an economic recession in his first year in office or an attack on the country the size of and scale of 9/11. He did not have to fight two extended wars or face the highest gas prices in history.
Even if one does argue that the Clinton years overall were better for the economy, you can't argue that they were much better than the Bush years. When you look at the percentage of Americans that lived in poverty in both era's, clearly the Bush years have been better.
Thats actually not true. Debt as a percentage of GDP went up every year during Clintons first 4 years in office. Under Bush, Unemployment rose and GDP growth slowed during his first couple of year in office. Then Unemployment steadly dropped over the next several years and GDP growth improved. But, now in the last 18 months of this administration, Unemployment has increased from a record low of 4.4% to 6.1%, and GDP growth has slowed up. Look at the poverty rate. It went up in the early Bush years but has been going down steadily since then.
When you simply look at the starting month the President came into office and the final month the President was in office, you don't get a true picture of what it was like to live for 8 years in the United States during that presidents two terms.
Take Jimmy Carter. If he had been re-elected in 1980 and you used this criteria of only looking where the President started and where he finished January 1977 vs. January 1985, you would have no idea that the country went through its worst inflation crises in the late 1970s.
8 years is a long time, and several of these key economic statistics will go up and down over such a long period of time. The only accurate way to look at it is to take the average, otherwise, your missing the majority of the data which reflects what economic life was like during that time.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
dazzledbylight
Blue Crack Supplier
Breaking News!!!
The Supreme Court Just smacked down the Ohio lower court's ruling in favor of the Republicans to throw out those 20,000 or was it 200,00O Newly Registered voters!
VintagePunk
Blue Crack Distributor
Has anyone heard about the two candidates attending the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner in New York City last night? I saw clips of it on CNN, and in the roast-like atmosphere, both of them took off the gloves for an evening, gave genuinely funny and self-deprecating speeches, and even *gasp* seemed to express some respect for each other. Video clips are available at the link.
McCain and Obama Palling Around? Must Be the Al Smith Dinner - The Caucus Blog - NYTimes.com
McCain and Obama Palling Around? Must Be the Al Smith Dinner
Senator John McCain, the Republican nominee for president, announced that he had dismissed his entire team of senior advisers. “All of their positions will now be held by a man named Joe the Plumber,’’ he cracked.
His rival, Senator Barack Obama, then made a confession about his past associations. “John McCain is onto something,’’ he said. “There was a point in my life when I started palling around with a pretty ugly crowd, I’ve got to be honest. These guys were serious deadbeats, they were lowlifes, they were unrepentant no-good punks. That’s right: I’ve been a member of the United States Senate.’’
With a pair of rivals taking time away from the fray to swap jokes, it could only be the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner in New York City, the white-tie charity roast that has long served as a light-hearted rest stop on the road to the White House. It brought Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama together Thursday night to dine together and trade some light-hearted jokes — some self-deprecating, some not so much — just one night after their third and final debate was so rough that many commentators could finally dust off all those boxing metaphors that they had been saving up this year.
They poked fun at themselves — and each other — in consecutive monologues that had their audience of New York royalty at the Waldorf-Astoria in stitches.
Mr. McCain answered critics who said that the plumber he made famous as a hardworking everyman in Wednesday night’s debate would not earn enough money to face any tax increase under Mr. Obama’s fiscal plan.
“What they don’t know — what they don’t know — is that Joe the Plumber recently signed a very lucrative contract with a wealthy couple to handle all the work on all seven of their houses,’’ Mr. McCain said, in an allusion to a flap he caused last summer when he was unable to remember how many homes he and his wife own.
And Mr. McCain scanned the crowd and said: “Even in this room full of proud Manhattan Democrats, I can’t shake that feeling that some people here are pulling for me,’’ quickly adding, “I’m delighted to see you here tonight, Hillary,’’ as he nodded to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who lost to Mr. Obama in the primary.
Mr. McCain gleefully toyed with the notion that former President Bill Clinton has been a less-than-enthusiastic campaigner for Mr. Obama. “He’s also been hammering away at me with epithets like ‘American hero’ and ‘great man,’ ” he said. “My friends, this is nothing but a brazen attempt to suppress turnout among anti-Clinton conservatives.’’
And he referred to the awkward moment in the second debate when he disdainfully referred to Mr. Obama as “that one.” “He doesn’t mind at all,’’ Mr. McCain said. “In fact, he even has a pet name for me: George Bush.’’
Mr. Obama, for his part, told the audience that his first name was actually Swahili for “that one.’’ And he had a startling revelation: “My middle name is actually Steve,” he said. “Barack Steve Obama.”
“There is no other crowd in America that I’d rather be palling around with right now,’’ he said right off the bat, alluding to Gov. Sarah Palin’s attack that he had been “palling around with terrorists.”
And he paid tribute to former governor Alfred E. Smith, the first Roman-Catholic to win the presidential nomination of a major party. “It is often said that I share the politics of Alfred E Smith and the ears of Alfred E. Neuman.’’
Mr. Obama, noting his age, said he did not have the pleasure of knowing Al Smith, but added: “From everything Senator McCain has told me, he was a great man.”
Then, he gave a shout out to Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg. “The mayor recently announced some news that he would be rewriting the rules and have a third term, which prompted Bill Clinton to say: You can do that?”
He poked fun at his reputation for arrogance, asking, “Can somebody tell me what happened to the Greek columns that I requested?’’
And, looking toward his rival, he said, “I think it is a tribute to American democracy that with two weeks left and a hard fought election, the two of us could come together, and sit down at the same dinner table without preconditions.’’
For all the tweaks, the two men did take time to praise one another in a tableau that would have seemed extraordinary 24 hours earlier, when Mr. McCain seemed to be throwing everything he had at Mr. Obama, sometimes angrily, painting him as a tax raiser who had had the poor judgment to hang around with a former terrorist.
Mr. McCain called Mr. Obama “an impressive fellow in many ways.’’
“Political opponents can have a little trouble seeing the best in each other,’’ he said. “I have seen this man at his best. I admire his great skill, energy and determination. It’s not for nothing that he has inspired so many folks in his own party and beyond. Senator Obama talks about making history and he’s made quite a bit of it already.’’
“There was a time when the mere invitation of an African-American citizen to dine at the White House was taken as an outrage and an insult in many quarters,’’ he said. “Today, it’s a world away from the cruel and frightful bigotry of that time. And good riddance.’’
“I can’t wish my opponent luck, but I do wish him well,’’ he said.
And Mr. Obama returned the compliment. “There are very few of us who have served this country with the same dedication and honor and distinction as Senator McCain, and I’m glad to be sharing a stage with him tonight.’’
The event, which is affiliated with the Archdiocese of New York, raised $4 million for underprivileged children.
McCain and Obama Palling Around? Must Be the Al Smith Dinner - The Caucus Blog - NYTimes.com
McCain and Obama Palling Around? Must Be the Al Smith Dinner
Senator John McCain, the Republican nominee for president, announced that he had dismissed his entire team of senior advisers. “All of their positions will now be held by a man named Joe the Plumber,’’ he cracked.
His rival, Senator Barack Obama, then made a confession about his past associations. “John McCain is onto something,’’ he said. “There was a point in my life when I started palling around with a pretty ugly crowd, I’ve got to be honest. These guys were serious deadbeats, they were lowlifes, they were unrepentant no-good punks. That’s right: I’ve been a member of the United States Senate.’’
With a pair of rivals taking time away from the fray to swap jokes, it could only be the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner in New York City, the white-tie charity roast that has long served as a light-hearted rest stop on the road to the White House. It brought Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama together Thursday night to dine together and trade some light-hearted jokes — some self-deprecating, some not so much — just one night after their third and final debate was so rough that many commentators could finally dust off all those boxing metaphors that they had been saving up this year.
They poked fun at themselves — and each other — in consecutive monologues that had their audience of New York royalty at the Waldorf-Astoria in stitches.
Mr. McCain answered critics who said that the plumber he made famous as a hardworking everyman in Wednesday night’s debate would not earn enough money to face any tax increase under Mr. Obama’s fiscal plan.
“What they don’t know — what they don’t know — is that Joe the Plumber recently signed a very lucrative contract with a wealthy couple to handle all the work on all seven of their houses,’’ Mr. McCain said, in an allusion to a flap he caused last summer when he was unable to remember how many homes he and his wife own.
And Mr. McCain scanned the crowd and said: “Even in this room full of proud Manhattan Democrats, I can’t shake that feeling that some people here are pulling for me,’’ quickly adding, “I’m delighted to see you here tonight, Hillary,’’ as he nodded to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who lost to Mr. Obama in the primary.
Mr. McCain gleefully toyed with the notion that former President Bill Clinton has been a less-than-enthusiastic campaigner for Mr. Obama. “He’s also been hammering away at me with epithets like ‘American hero’ and ‘great man,’ ” he said. “My friends, this is nothing but a brazen attempt to suppress turnout among anti-Clinton conservatives.’’
And he referred to the awkward moment in the second debate when he disdainfully referred to Mr. Obama as “that one.” “He doesn’t mind at all,’’ Mr. McCain said. “In fact, he even has a pet name for me: George Bush.’’
Mr. Obama, for his part, told the audience that his first name was actually Swahili for “that one.’’ And he had a startling revelation: “My middle name is actually Steve,” he said. “Barack Steve Obama.”
“There is no other crowd in America that I’d rather be palling around with right now,’’ he said right off the bat, alluding to Gov. Sarah Palin’s attack that he had been “palling around with terrorists.”
And he paid tribute to former governor Alfred E. Smith, the first Roman-Catholic to win the presidential nomination of a major party. “It is often said that I share the politics of Alfred E Smith and the ears of Alfred E. Neuman.’’
Mr. Obama, noting his age, said he did not have the pleasure of knowing Al Smith, but added: “From everything Senator McCain has told me, he was a great man.”
Then, he gave a shout out to Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg. “The mayor recently announced some news that he would be rewriting the rules and have a third term, which prompted Bill Clinton to say: You can do that?”
He poked fun at his reputation for arrogance, asking, “Can somebody tell me what happened to the Greek columns that I requested?’’
And, looking toward his rival, he said, “I think it is a tribute to American democracy that with two weeks left and a hard fought election, the two of us could come together, and sit down at the same dinner table without preconditions.’’
For all the tweaks, the two men did take time to praise one another in a tableau that would have seemed extraordinary 24 hours earlier, when Mr. McCain seemed to be throwing everything he had at Mr. Obama, sometimes angrily, painting him as a tax raiser who had had the poor judgment to hang around with a former terrorist.
Mr. McCain called Mr. Obama “an impressive fellow in many ways.’’
“Political opponents can have a little trouble seeing the best in each other,’’ he said. “I have seen this man at his best. I admire his great skill, energy and determination. It’s not for nothing that he has inspired so many folks in his own party and beyond. Senator Obama talks about making history and he’s made quite a bit of it already.’’
“There was a time when the mere invitation of an African-American citizen to dine at the White House was taken as an outrage and an insult in many quarters,’’ he said. “Today, it’s a world away from the cruel and frightful bigotry of that time. And good riddance.’’
“I can’t wish my opponent luck, but I do wish him well,’’ he said.
And Mr. Obama returned the compliment. “There are very few of us who have served this country with the same dedication and honor and distinction as Senator McCain, and I’m glad to be sharing a stage with him tonight.’’
The event, which is affiliated with the Archdiocese of New York, raised $4 million for underprivileged children.
dazzledbylight
Blue Crack Supplier
thanks VP! 
I'd been hearing the excerts on radio News channels and liberal talk radio.
pretty funny stuff!
only McCain today is still doing those ROBO calls 'hangs out w terrorist Bill Ayers' shit
I'd been hearing the excerts on radio News channels and liberal talk radio.
pretty funny stuff!
only McCain today is still doing those ROBO calls 'hangs out w terrorist Bill Ayers' shit
Nice, but the basic macro-economic statistics that show what it was like to live during a certain Presidential Administration are the unemployment rate, inflation rate, GDP growth rate, Debt as a percentage of GDP, and the poverty rate.
The fact is, a higher percentage of people lived under poverty during the Clinton years than during the Bush years. Bush has the 3rd lowest poverty rate of any President in history.
Surpluses and Deficits come and go. The economist accurately predicted that the sudden surpluses of the last couple of years of Clintons administration would soon be gone and this was before Bush was elected.
Despite the difficult Bush has had with a recession, major terrorist attack, fighting two extended wars, he has been able to keep US national debt as a percentage of GDP from growing to fast. His worst year yet, is still lower than 5 of Clintons 8 years in office on this.
If your honest, objective, and look at the key macro-economic statistics for each administration, you will realize that both the Clinton years and Bush years are very similar when it comes to the economy. What is remarkable is that Bush had many more crises and problems to deal with, yet was able to maintain and economy that was similar in performance in actually better in some area's like the poverty rate.
dazzledbylight
Blue Crack Supplier
Let's NOT forget that--
--the "Unemployment Stats" DO NOT take into account people who finally give up looking for work! That would add several % points.
Most people will still tell you they were better off after 8 years of Clinton, than these pass 8 years of W.
Not so unlike the current US military "stats" that do NOT take into account all the injured soldiers that have died AWAY FROM the battlefield!
There are figures out of Germany where many of the soldiers are flown to that suggest our war dead #'s are closer 10,000 and above.
--the "Unemployment Stats" DO NOT take into account people who finally give up looking for work! That would add several % points.
Most people will still tell you they were better off after 8 years of Clinton, than these pass 8 years of W.
Not so unlike the current US military "stats" that do NOT take into account all the injured soldiers that have died AWAY FROM the battlefield!
There are figures out of Germany where many of the soldiers are flown to that suggest our war dead #'s are closer 10,000 and above.
I agree...I am trying to understand how my question is "not true"?
Can questions be true or not true?
dazzledbylight
Blue Crack Supplier
VERY IMPORTANT STUFF!!!
Breaking News!!!
The Supreme Court Just smacked down the Ohio lower court's ruling in favor of the Republicans to throw out those 20,000 or was it 200,00O Newly Registered voters!
this was reported by Ron Kuby --
he added later after he had more time to review the ruling....
that the 5 judge majority told the Republicans- basically they had no right to bring it as a case (lawsuit?)
dazzledbylight
Blue Crack Supplier
The Supreme Court is allowing the greatest voter fraud in American history and is unraveling the very threads of democracy!!1!
happy to bring in some ***GOOD*** news!
- Status
