Official Campaign 2008 Hot Stove Thread

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
she's 29! and 6 ft tall ! I may have to vote for this guy!!

unico said:
They're soulmates! You should read how they met :cute:

I did

Essex girl fills White House race with lurve


DK%20&%20EJK%202.preview.JPG



Elizabeth, 6ft, towers over her congressman husband Dennis
Sarah Baxter, Washington

AN Essex girl may be the first lady with a tongue stud to have set her sights on the White House. The wife of Dennis Kucinich, a left-wing Democratic congressman and 2008 presidential candidate, is a 29-year-old hippie chick from Upminster at the end of London Underground's District line.

Elizabeth Kucinich, n�e Harper, has been on the stump with her husband, a 60-year-old anti-war campaigner from Cleveland, Ohio, mingling with the likes of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama backstage at the Democratic presidential debates. "There's a kind of camaraderie," she said.

A 6ft tall willowy redhead who has been compared to Arwen Evenstar, the Lord of the Rings character, she towers over her diminutive husband. "Who cares?" she said in an interview. "I like wearing high heels so I'm used to being taller than most men I stand next to."

Nor is she bothered by their 31-year age difference. "I have never noticed it at all," she said. "Dennis is a very mature but young-at-heart gentleman and we complement each other."

Kucinich met her husband-to-be two years ago when she visited his office in the House of Representatives with her boss

as a volunteer worker for the American Monetary Institute, an offbeat group dedicated to reforming the "unjust monetary system".

It was love at first sight for both of them. Immediately after their meeting, Dennis Kucinich phoned a friend and said: "I've met her [my future wife]."

He was mesmerised to receive a business e-mail from Harper with her usual signature line from Kama Sutra, one of her favourite films: "Knowing love, I shall allow all things to come and go, to be as supple as the wind and take everything that comes with great courage. My heart is as open as the sky."

the complete article is here


A first Lady we could look up to
 
Is it odd that I don't see ANY of the candidates, Democrat OR Republican, as electable? None of them stand out to me with that quality. I think in '08 everyone should write in Bill Clinton or Bono or something :p
 
I love what Jon Stewart recently said about Rudy:

"Hey, Giuliani, if you love the War on Terror so much, why don't you MARRY IT???"

He then said something about they'd probably get a divorce in a couple of years anyway. :laugh:

There was a full-page picture of Rudy in The New Republic recently that reminded me of Mussolini...the clenched jaw, the expression. Strange, scary man.

I personally am still backing Edwards and am tired of the hit job the press seems to be doing on him. They want him to take a vow of poverty and get his hair done at Supercuts.
 
Diane L said:


am tired of the hit job the press seems to be doing on him.

Personally, I love it. I don't know if you're talking about Bill O'Reilly or not, but he is exposing Edwards, and I absolutely agree with him that he is no longer a contender in the race. Last night Bill showed Edwards saying what a great guy Danny Glover is, right after he got back from hugging Hugo Chavez.

My guy Rudy is of course being treated unfairly. All the media seems to care about is his marriage. Funny how when the president of the United States cheated on his wife everyone was like "Well it's his personal life and it's none of our business," yet when a guy is married a few times we never stop hearing about it.
 
2861U2 said:
Last night Bill showed Edwards saying what a great guy Danny Glover is, right after he got back from hugging Hugo Chavez.


and if that's more important to you than dealing with poverty, if a gaff is something you're willing to judge an entire career by and discard, you know, substance, then i think we're all in trouble.



My guy Rudy is of course being treated unfairly. All the media seems to care about is his marriage. Funny how when the president of the United States cheated on his wife everyone was like "Well it's his personal life and it's none of our business," yet when a guy is married a few times we never stop hearing about it.


it's the Republicans who seem to think that someone's sex life/marital issues are appropriate material upon which to judge one's candidacy. it's the Republicans who want the president to be an exemplar of moral certitude and chastity. it's the Republicans who have stated that they want to regulate what goes on behind closed doors.

and, honey, what do you mean "everyone was like ..." there was an impeachment. remember how Bush was going to restore "honor and dignity" to the White House? (oh, the irony)

and i don't give a shit about Rudy's sex life. or his many marriages. or his failed personal relationships. or the fact that his son hates him. or the fact that he loves to dress in drag.

it is YOUR guys, the Republicans, who seem to think these things matter. and did so in the most embarassing way possible with the whole Lewinsky debacle.
 
I watched the Republican debate the other day. It is glaringly obvious that none of these people are fit to be president. Some, like Tancredo, are complete lunatics. Huckabee doesn't know if the world was created in 6 days because he "wasn't there" to see it. That third dude also doesn't believe in evolution. Stunning ignorance and half of them are embarrassing xenophobes who should have no place on public airwaves.

If the election was held today, no Republican would even come close to sniffing victory. Rightfully so.
 
U2democrat said:
Is it odd that I don't see ANY of the candidates, Democrat OR Republican, as electable? None of them stand out to me with that quality. I think in '08 everyone should write in Bill Clinton or Bono or something :p


:lol:

I tend to agree with you here, as much as I like to think I support Obama, I want to wait until next year when the real race begins before I make any sort of real decision.

There are just too many candidates at the moment.
 
anitram said:
Stunning ignorance and half of them are embarrassing xenophobes who should have no place on public airwaves.

If the election was held today, no Republican would even come close to sniffing victory. Rightfully so.

I could say the same things about the Democrats.

I question your assertion that a Rep would stand no chance if the election were today. You're simply incorrect. The polls I have seen shows a very close race between the top candidates (Rudy, McCain, Hillary, Obama). The notion that a Democrat is going to run away with this race is flat out wrong- maybe wishful thinking on your part, but it's flat out wrong.
 
2861U2 said:


I could say the same things about the Democrats.

I question your assertion that a Rep would stand no chance if the election were today. You're simply incorrect. The polls I have seen shows a very close race between the top candidates (Rudy, McCain, Hillary, Obama). The notion that a Democrat is going to run away with this race is flat out wrong- maybe wishful thinking on your part, but it's flat out wrong.

Is it now?

Pew Poll that came out yesterday, for your enjoyment:

Pew asked voters 18-49 who'd they have a "good chance" of voting for of the current leading candidates. The results (allowing to vote for more than one candidate):

Clinton: 24%
Obama: 22%
Gore: 19%
Giuliani: 15%
Edwards: 11%
McCain: 9%
Thompson: 7%
Gingrich: 7%
Romney: 6%

Enjoy the numbers here.

The fact that a guy who isn't even running is ahead of the ENTIRE Republican field is an embarrassment.
 
anitram said:


Is it now?

Pew Poll that came out yesterday, for your enjoyment:



Enjoy the numbers here.

The fact that a guy who isn't even running is ahead of the ENTIRE Republican field is an embarrassment.

And here are other polls saying the opposite:

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

Different polls will say different things, but saying a Republican stands zero chance is just incorrect, and you know it.
 
I said if the election was today none of them would come close to victory and I absolutely believe it. The public is just anti-war enough and hates Bush enough to allow no Republican into the White House at the present moment.

You're free to disagree.
 
anitram said:
I said if the election was today none of them would come close to victory and I absolutely believe it. The public is just anti-war enough and hates Bush enough to allow no Republican into the White House at the present moment.



and it is amazing the length to which the Republicans are going to distance themselves from George Bush.

but then if they want to have a prayer of winning.

held today, the Dems would clearly win. but it's a long time until next November.
 
U2democrat said:
Is it odd that I don't see ANY of the candidates, Democrat OR Republican, as electable? None of them stand out to me with that quality. I think in '08 everyone should write in Bill Clinton or Bono or something :p

I am wondering if you only get excited about the ones you have had personal involvement with

(or wish you had) :wink:
 
:lmao:

No actually, I've met Edwards, seen him speak a couple of times. Same goes for Obama, and Hillary.


ETA: I just don't see anyone being electable once they get the nomination :shrug:

It's early, maybe someone will stand out later.
 
Mitt Steps in Shit; Media Says it Smells Like Roses by Paul Begala

In a 2000 debate, Al Gore said that during wildfires in Texas he'd met with the director of FEMA. In fact, Vice President Gore had met with the deputy director of FEMA. Although I had been at the meeting as well, I didn't remember it either. But the press, spoon-fed by the Republican smear machine, used the misstatement to damn Gore as a "serial exaggerator."

So I expected the 600 journalists covering the GOP debate at St. Anselm's College to spank Mitt Romney when, in answering the first question of the night -- knowing what you know now, would you have invaded Iraq? -- Romney said that if "Saddam Hussein had opened up his country to IAEA inspectors, and they'd come in and they'd found that there were no weapons of mass destruction...we wouldn't be in the conflict we're in."

Wolf Blitzer followed up, trying to get a straight answer. But again, Romney repeated this story: "You can go back and say, if we knew then what we know now, by virtue of inspectors having been let in and giving us that information, by virtue of if Saddam Hussein had followed the U.N. resolutions, we wouldn't be having this -- this discussion."

So, in Romneyland, Pres. Bush invaded Iraq because the Iraqi government would not allow weapons inspectors in. The lack of inspectors led Bush to believe Saddam had WMDs and was preparing to use them against us or our allies. So Bush had to invade.

Boy, oh boy, I thought, Ol' Mitt's gonna take some shit. Because everyone knows that Iraq did allow weapons inspectors in. Everyone remembers that day -- September 17, 2002 -- when Saddam capitulated to Kofi Annan and allowed inspectors in without conditions. (The CNN story that day was headlined, cleverly, "Iraq Agrees to Weapons Inspections.")

Everyone remembers Hans Blix and over 250 experts scouring the countryside, looking for weapons of mass destruction. Everyone remembers the Bush Administration deriding their work, Dick Cheney saying they provide false comfort, right-wingers darkly hinting that someone the International Atomic Energy Agency was secretly in league with -- or at least sympathetic to -- the evil dictator.

And everyone remembers that, after months of searching and finding nothing, the weapons inspectors asked for more time. Begged is more like it. But President Bush refused. On March 17, 2003 and kicked the weapons inspectors out, and on March 20 he launched his war.

So for Mitt Romney to say it was Saddam who kicked the inspectors out, well, I thought he'd be crushed for his ignorance -- or his dishonesty. I almost felt sorry for him.

But after the debate, nothing.

I couldn't believe it. I understood why Romney's Republican opponents didn't correct him. They need the public to believe the myth that Saddam wouldn't allow weapons inspectors in. In fact, Bush has repeated this same lie. Republicans want to blur the record, to revise history, so we don't have to confront the fact that if Mr. Bush had given the weapons inspectors more time to do their job, they would have concluded Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction. No weapons, no threat. No threat, no war.

But I was -- and am -- stunned at the lack of scrutiny by the media. The New York Times found the space to correct some bit of arcana they believe Romney misstated about Z-visas -- a form of visa that does not exist, incorporated in a bill that will not become law. And yet the Times, like most of its colleagues and competitors, ignored the fact that Romney told a big, fat whopper about why Mr. Bush went to war -- and why tens of thousands of people are now dead.

To its credit, CNN (where I work as a political analyst) replayed the tape of Romney's fib -- or flub -- repeatedly. But when I pointed out Romney's blunder, the Republican pundits on the set with me vigorously disputed that Romney was even wrong. I yelled. In fact, my wife later called and said I was too aggressive. I was in full Crossfire mode.

Jon Stewart, whose show I love, gave Crossfire its epitaph when he said it was "hurting America." I thought then, and I still think, that was bullshit. Sure, we yelled a lot. But at least people like Carville and me yelled to try to stop George W. Bush from lying us into a war. When the smart set in the elite media were all repeating the Bush lies about war, the clowns on Crossfire kept saying there was no threat. And we yelled.

And so I yelled again last night when a leading Republican again lied about why we went to war. But with all respect to Jon Stewart, that's not what hurts America. What hurts America is when powerful media elites excoriate a Democrat for an insignificant error, but turn a blind eye to a campaign of lies about war.
 
2861U2 said:


My guy Rudy is of course being treated unfairly. All the media seems to care about is his marriage. Funny how when the president of the United States cheated on his wife everyone was like "Well it's his personal life and it's none of our business," yet when a guy is married a few times we never stop hearing about it.

I think it goes a bit beyond just being "married a few times." Rudy's second wife first found out that her husband was filing for divorce during one of his press conferences. His children do not get along with Judi and he is estranged from them, which makes him a lousy father in my book. The way Rudy has conducted himself during his marriages is the issue, not just that he's been married a few times.

Go ahead, continue believing in your guy--hey, he'll have Amtrak running on time! And Edwards will continue to be my favorite candidate, no matter what nonsense BillO spews about him.
 
absintheminded said:
Why doesn't anybody like Hillary Clinton? She did a number during the whole Clinton administration...

I've never understood why many people dislike her either. And I don't mean her politics, I mean I'm hearing a lot who dislike HER. I don't think she's done very much, nor had much of an impact to warrant such attention, be it negative or positive.
 
unico said:


I've never understood why many people dislike her either. And I don't mean her politics, I mean I'm hearing a lot who dislike HER. I don't think she's done very much, nor had much of an impact to warrant such attention, be it negative or positive.

A number of reasons I dont like her, aside from her politics.
1) She's a complete phony. Watch the videos of her speaking with a southern/black accent when she was talking to a church congregation. I would be embarrassed by that if I were a Hillary supporter.
2) Her voice. She has the most irritating and monotonous voice. I could not stand to listen to her speak for 4 years.
3) Stated clearly be a number of people: She didnt know Bill was running around on her. Oh yeah? Then I dont think you're smart enough to be the president of the United States.
 
2861U2 said:


A number of reasons I dont like her, aside from her politics.
1) She's a complete phony. Watch the videos of her speaking with a southern/black accent when she was talking to a church congregation. I would be embarrassed by that if I were a Hillary supporter.
2) Her voice. She has the most irritating and monotonous voice. I could not stand to listen to her speak for 4 years.
3) Stated clearly be a number of people: She didnt know Bill was running around on her. Oh yeah? Then I dont think you're smart enough to be the president of the United States.

1) what videos are you talking about?
2) you REALLY base your dislike of somebody because of the voice that GOD gave him/her?
3) as is evident in the current administration, intelligence is not a prerequisite for holding presidential office
 
unico said:


1) what videos are you talking about?
2) you REALLY base your dislike of somebody because of the voice that GOD gave him/her?
3) as is evident in the current administration, intelligence is not a prerequisite for holding presidential office

1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pu9TQq0C3Ac
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaDQ1vIuvZI&mode=related&search=
2) I'm not basing my dislike of her off of that. But it is something I really, really would not look forward to hearing if she was elected.
3) Don't make this about Bush. Hillary did not know what Bill was doing, and that doesnt show to me that she is too bright.
 
2861U2 said:



3) Stated clearly be a number of people: She didnt know Bill was running around on her. Oh yeah? Then I dont think you're smart enough to be the president of the United States.

This is coming from someone who believes in dragons and satellite images...:|
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom