Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

McCain savours wins; Democrats in for long fight

CALVIN WOODWARD

Associated Press

Latest comment posted at 7:11 PM EDT 06/02/08

On Saturday, Louisiana and Washington state hold two-party primary contests ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Quinn Barreth from Canada writes: Obama or Clinton vs. McCain in the November elections - looks like ALL the good guys will be running for most important elected position in the world. Plus, we get to stop hearing that it is all Bush's fault too! Geez, it's like a Christmas present that came early!
  2. s like from Canada writes: If McCain wins the presidency, I believe he will complete the ruination of America that Bush began.

    There's just something about him that is shallow. He doesn't offer one fresh thought on the problems confronting the US - just another tax-cut and spend money we don't have Republican. Just another cut-spending Republican who won't but will continue to dump ever greater sums into the military. Another God and family values Republican who will cater to the rich and ignore the poor in total contradiction to the Bible. Just another Republican who doesn't have the cahonies to tell Americans they've got some serious problems and will help maintain the illusion of "everything is great" by offering tax cuts they can't afford - tax cuts which will in the end, accomplish little if anything.

    Which is why Republicans won't vote for Ron Paul. The truth sucks! Even if you don't agree with all of his policies (which I don't), he's the only one that had any integrity. At least he'd deal with the debt and get the US out of Iraq.
  3. charles baris from Montreal, writes: Alot of spelling mistakes, especially near the end with the author using "Mr.Clinton..."
  4. Quinn Barreth from Canada writes: s like

    Did you read the article? It pointed out that independents and liberal conservatives voted overwhelmingly for McCain, and all the 'right-wing' types voted for Romney and Huckabee. THIS is the guy you want running for the Republican nomination, even with your loathing for the current administration (y'know your emotions that overwhelm your reason!). He'll cut taxes and restore fiscal sensibility to the gov't (if he overcomes the deep revulsion Americans feel for the war and choose to vote for him).
  5. Jeremy _ from Calgary, Canada writes: The article is factually incorrect. MSNBC, CNN and most American news agencies are reporting that Obama has captured the lead in delegates, with 847 delegates compared to Clinton's 834, due to the unique proportional system that the Democrats use to apportion delegates. Obama's political staff have been concentrating their efforts on capturing key Congressional districts with odd delegate counts where a win in those districts results in more delegates overall for Obama regardless of the state results. In short, he is leveraging small advantages to a big win. So much for his supposed inexperience.
  6. Mr. Justice from Canada writes: McCain, Huckabee, and Romney are ALL Bible-believin' Christians, and all three are genuine conservatives. The talk about McCain being some sort of "liberal" is simply nonsense put out by his opponents.
  7. Popeye Dillon from North Vancouver, Canada writes: s like: Have you been actually following the US election? Yes a shallow person survives five years as a POW. Twenty years as a senator must not count for anything either.
  8. Susie Q from Canada writes: It has to be Clinton against McCain. If not, the Republicans will play on Obama's inexperience and slide back into power.
  9. Butch Kamena from Bellingham, WA, United States writes: The sub-head isn't entirely correct. Washington holds a caucus on Saturday, not a primary. It is for both parties. There will also be a primary on Feb. 19, also for both parties, making Washington the only state where there is both a caucus and a primary for both the Republicans and the Democrats.

    Just to add to the confusion, the Republicans will establish delegates from both the caucus and the primary, but the Democrats will do so only from the caucus, making the Dems primary little more than a beauty contest.
  10. Rain Couver from Canada writes: Whoever you may support, one thing is for certain, the Americans are being significantly more careful about who they elect as president, particularly the democratic candidate.

    What the democrats are saying is that they will happily nominate either Clinton or Obama (as there is about a 70% democratic approval for either nominee), but the message is that they will be accountable to the people who are fed up of the fascist style of leadership. That is very good news as people in the US exercise their democratic right for the first time in awhile.
  11. Paul Jones from kitchener, Canada writes: Go McCain!
    I'd love to see this man in the White House a year from now.
  12. Tyler Williams from seattle, United States writes: Interesting.

    The troll named Mr Justice may be surprised to learn that America contains lots of "Bible-believin" Christians who are liberals.

    So it is not clear why he chose to use the infantile potty term of "Bible-believin" in his post.
  13. s like from Canada writes: Quinn

    I don't care who's voting for McCain. My point is that he'll just keep doing what Bush has done. Cut taxes which is stupid because the government needs to pay off debt and get its house in order before it can cut taxes. To do otherwise is simply irresponsible. He's intent on staying in Iraq and has no real understanding of the so called war on terror. The US has helped fuel the terrorist movement by funding Osama way back and meddling in Middle East affairs by overthrowing democratically elected governments in Iran back in the 50s and supporting dictatorships. No wonder the Iranians hate Americans.
    Nevertheless, you can't cut taxes, wage war in Iraq, dump $150 billion in short terms tax cuts which will accomplish nothing and hope to balance the budget.
    I don't think emotion is overcoming my reason. McCain really doesn't have one fresh thought on any of these problems.
  14. ian seeton from writes: How many times did Calvin refer to Hilary as Mr. Clinton?
  15. Mr. Justice from Canada writes: Tyler: . . . It is unfortunate that you refer to the term "Bible-believin' Christians" as a "infantile potty term". YIKES. This is exactly how conservative Christians identify themselves. If you want to ignore this: FINE.
  16. Tyler Williams from seattle, United States writes: Interesting.

    Mr Justice seems to be confused in the area of context when it comes to using words.

    The use by Mr Justice of the phrase "Bible-believin Christians" was clearly used as an infantile potty term, its aim clearly being low-brow political, that is, to connect the (false) idea that "Bible-believin Christians" must somehow be conservatives.

    It is the context - political use of the term to score points, as used by Mr Justice - that renders it a smearing and infantile potty term.

    (And, as already stated, his potty term does not even make sense: Hilary and Obama and Ted Kennedy have all professed to be Christians who believe in the bible, and they, like many US Christians, are American liberals.)
  17. Nibo H from Calgary, Canada writes: I am all for a democrat wining in November, any democrat for that matter, but all this talk of Hillary’s 35 years of experience really needs to be put into proper context. She has been a junior senator for 6 years, that&8217;s the only experience she has over Obama. Unless you consider 8 years as first lady, when she did virtually nothing put piss off the Republicans, she has no other major experience over Obama. And if the thinking is that she should win because of her experience, then John McCain should automatically be anointed president because he probably has more experience than both Hillary and Obama but together.
  18. Strong Bad from Canada writes: I know we're all counting down the days Bush leaves office and many people are hoping that it's the Democrats that take the white house but from a Canadian perspective, that wouldn't necessarily be good for us from an economic standpoint. Both Obama and Clinton have talked protectionism and specifically spoke out against NAFTA. If Hillary wins, I wouldn't count on it being a throw back to the 1990's - she will be a very different president from Bill.
  19. Mary Smith from United States writes:

    Mr. Justice

    Both Obama and Clinton are Bible-believing Christians. Furthermore, 1/3 of Evangelicals are Democrats.

    You continue to reveal your extraordinary ignorance.
  20. Don Portz from Trochu, AB, Canada writes: Watching TV yeaterday with interviews with two former US ambaassadors to Canada state that we will be better off with McCain than Clinton or Obama. The reason stated being the proposed protectionist policies, eliminationof NAFTA etc. (also reference by Obama to the PRESIDENT of Canada).However, in any event the people of the US will decide which is only correct.
  21. Crusty Curmudgeon from Ottawa, Canada writes:

    On the plus side -- the good news for Bush is that if McCain wins, it will make Bush look like an anti-war demonstrator.
  22. Mary Smith from United States writes:

    The President said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with UN inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.

    1. "Saddam must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."

    2. "Along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning."

    3. "The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government--a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people."

    4. "Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces."

    1. Bill Clinton
    2. Bill Clinton
    3. Bill Clinton
    4. Bill Clinton

    Operation Desert Fox, 4 day bombing campaign-- 1998.
  23. Just Sayin' from Canada writes: Who is going to be the third party candidate this year. The Greens will, obviously, try and find someone to run. Will that be Nader again? Is there anyone else who might be willing to run as a green spoiler who will have the clout to do so? Has the environmental issue gained enough saliency in the US to over-ride the fear of continuing the Bush legacy? I suspect not.

    Will there be a fiscal conservative a la Ross Perot that comes out of the woodwork given the fiscal fiasco of the last 8 years? This seems even less likely to me.

    I think the most likely scenario is an issues driven, Christian Right candidate sponsored by the evangelical leadership that splits McCain's base. They have the most power to lose in this election and I don't see McCain being able to put Huckabee on the ticket without the Right calling Huckabee a traitor. If the evangelical community can cost the Republicans a legitimate shot the Presidency they will be affirming to the Republican base the need for them to choose candidates in line with their 'moral' agenda. This will force the Republicans to come back home and toe the evangelical line in 2012.

    Third party candidates have played a major role in the last 4-5 Federal elections in the US. I think it is short-sighted to suspect that this won't happen again this year.
  24. anonymouse Z from Canada writes: Mary Smith: And still, Bill Clinton did not wage a full scale war against Iraq that was beyond his means. The point is that Bush was involved in a war in Afghanistan, which was by no means over and yet went after Iraq. Even though US was urged by almost all the allies to not get involved in. It's about choosing the best option available. Surely one can expect a president to have that ability.
  25. Just Sayin' from Canada writes: C'mon. Surely Monica Lewinsky wasn't Bill Clinton's best option.
  26. William Doyle from Prince George, Canada writes: I have never seen the USA so down and out since the late 1960's during the Vietnam war. The big difference this time around is : LBJ & Nixon were lied a lot but no one ever called them stupid. Today the USA has a very stupid president who is controlled by people like war monger Cheney. My concern would be if they elect McCain is that they he will continue the Iraq invasion policy. Obama is the only candidate who says he would get out of Iraq and hopefully he is elected.
  27. Mary Smith from United States writes:

    anonymouse

    Read the quotes again, fast forward 5 yrs, terrorists attacks on US, Saddam still not cooperating and you'll see very little difference between Bush and Clinton.
  28. JP M from Canada writes: Susie Q from Canada writes: "It has to be Clinton against McCain. If not, the Republicans will play on Obama's inexperience and slide back into power."....
    ...that strategy didn't work terribly well for his Democrat opponents Susie. They might want to try a different tac....

    As for Mary Smith, not only did President Clinton "not wage a full scale war...beyond his means" as anonymouse pointed out, but he also didn't ruin the American economy, destabilize the geopolitical landscape, or inspire hatred and distrust of America across huge swaths of the globe. He might have made some bonehead moves in his indiscreet personal life, but America and the world benefitted from his stewardship.
  29. Steve D from Canada writes: Mary Smith from United States writes:

    'The President said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with UN inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.

    1. "Saddam must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons."

    2. "Along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning."

    3. "The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government--a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people."

    4. "Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces."

    1. Bill Clinton
    2. Bill Clinton
    3. Bill Clinton
    4. Bill Clinton

    Operation Desert Fox, 4 day bombing campaign-- 1998.'

    So Bill Clinton likes quickies; what else is new?
  30. k st-pierre from toronto, Canada writes: Interesting. Tyler W aka Savard is back on here critiquing some posts like he is a teacher/debate instructor and, as usual, contributing nothing of substance but his own asinine assumptions. Mary "I troll where I wanna" Smith wins for the most inadvertently ironic post (after 2 terms of Bush and post 9/11 America, none of u have a right to call anyone else ignorant). Those of you who think Clinton or Obama are going to all of a sudden cut trade with Canada seem to forget that we have energy we can use as leverage to make sure trade stays relatively the same. But I think we should start looking at diverting about 25% of the trade with US to other markets. US economic future isn't to bright and we should start now insulating ourselves from their inevitable decline. I like McCain but agree he won't support any kind of radical change-which is what the US needs to do to restore its greatness and prosperity. Obama is my choice- not "in" long enough to have been totally corrupted and not afraid to admit that not all is great in OZ and no-one is really to blame but themselves. Hopefully the psuedo-christian/psuedo-capitalist fundamentalists (neo-cons) don't off him before he has a chance to do some good.
  31. Quinn Barreth from Canada writes: s like

    McCain is simply continuing a good policy established by Regan, and copied by every successful leader since, of cutting taxes to improve the revenue coming into a government. Of course, we 'socialists' in Canada don't believe in that, even though every socialist gov't in Europe is doing the same.

    As far as the Iraq war thing - McCain simply believes that he needs to be responsible for cleaning up the mess his country made there. He is not being disingenuous by simply saying 'we're gonna leave' and letting it fall back into chaos. I thought I heard him talk about stabilisation and gradual withdrawl (correct me if I'm wrong). At least he is being honest.

    And as far as I'm concerned this is a guy who has served honestly and been screwed over by the establishment time and again. This nomination probably comes as a realisation by his party that he is the guy who should have won back in 1999 to face off against Gore (or was it 1998?).
  32. Hans Ulster from Destiny, Alberta, Canada writes: JP M from Canada writes: Susie Q from Canada writes: "It has to be Clinton against McCain. If not, the Republicans will play on Obama's inexperience and slide back into power.".... ...that strategy didn't work terribly well for his Democrat opponents Susie. They might want to try a different tac.... As for Mary Smith, not only did President Clinton "not wage a full scale war...beyond his means" as anonymouse pointed out, but he also didn't ruin the American economy, destabilize the geopolitical landscape, or inspire hatred and distrust of America across huge swaths of the globe. He might have made some bonehead moves in his indiscreet personal life, but America and the world benefitted from his stewardship. --------- No, he just let al Qaeda attack the U.S. on multiple occasions....and did nothing. Remember the USS Cole or the first attack on the World Trade Centre? It happened before Bush. And, I actually thought taking down the World Trade Center might have played a role in damaging the American economy and destabilizing the geopolitical landscape. And, quite frankly, the U.S. was justified in removing Saddam from power JUST on the premise that Iraqi troops were firing at coalition aircraft in the no-fly zones. Nevertheless, neither Obama or Hillary advocate an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. In fact, Hillary recommends staying for a MINIMUM of 18 months, or longer depending on the recommendation of generals on the ground. P.S. Susie, how is that the Republicans will "play on" Obama's inexperience? Is that not a valid topic? Is it too sinister and under-handed to point out that a legislator with no legislation to his name might be inexperienced?
  33. M. Mark from Victoria, Canada writes: I'd like to see Clinton as president with Obama as her vice. What a great team that would make.
  34. Hans Ulster from Destiny, Alberta, Canada writes: k st-pierre from toronto, Canada writes: Hopefully the psuedo-christian/psuedo-capitalist fundamentalists (neo-cons) don't off him before he has a chance to do some good.

    ---------

    Funny that. More people have died due to unfortunate circumstances around the clintons. LOL. Remember Vince Foster? And, last time I checked it wasn't a neo-con that whacked Lincoln (a Republican) or Reagan (a Republican).

    You people are about as humorous as the UFO whack-jobs in the 70's. Seeing a skinny green alien behind every telephone pole. Remember that if you keep your tinfoil hat on, the Karl Rove mind rays can't get you.
  35. Michael Sharp from Crocus City, Canada writes:

    "M. Mark from Victoria, Canada writes: I'd like to see Clinton as president with Obama as her vice. What a great team that would make.'

    They would make great socially progressive strides forward and legalize sodomy.

    All hail the Brave New America!
  36. robert F from Toronto, Canada writes: When will this pathetic clinging to mythos be finally dead.

    If there is a god he likely does not directly intervene in the daily lives of sad creatures such as men.

    The program has been run, let it finish.
  37. k st-pierre from toronto, Canada writes: Quin Bareth- How does cutting taxes "improve" revenue? Has Bush's cuts helped revenue now? I disagree with your assesment of Reagan. Reaganomics is essentially socialism unless you think deficit spending by the govt into the economy done by Repubs is different than socialist govt budgets. The problem with Reaganomics is that it really only centres around defence spending with some protection to area's where votes were/are needed. This has led to the problem America faces today. To maintain status quo will not solve the problem. Fiscal responsibility (govt spends less) is absolutely necessary right now. Bush's budget shows how out of touch he and the CONS are in understanding the problems that America faces.
  38. Emma Hawthorne from Canada writes: To my knowledge all educated women are also supporting Hillary, and she was unfairly penalized by somewhat bogus caucuses yesterday as their vote-counts were too small to be reflective. Her position is significantly stronger than Obama's. In any event, neither the US nor the world can afford to have an inexperienced person at the wheel, ever again. Hillary has the track record, realistic foreign policy and an actual plan for universal medicare and access to education, whereas Obama's medicare plan, for example, leaves 20 million uninsured Americans out in the cold. Hillary's new America will give all citizens a chance at a good life and create a kindler, gentler country. Obama should serve as VP and run for pres. in 2016.
  39. s like from Canada writes: Quinn Barreth

    "McCain is simply continuing a good policy established by Reagan, and copied by every successful leader since, of cutting taxes to improve the revenue coming into a government. Of course, we 'socialists' in Canada don't believe in that, even though every socialist gov't in Europe is doing the same."

    You have a point with regards to the US. They can't just leave without creating a worse mess though I don't know that staying will actually make a difference.

    As for the economy, successful by who's measure? Not one Republican administration has balanced the budget as far back as I can remember. The US is deeply in debt and supply side economics has been found wanting. Lots of supply coming from China but Americans have had to extract their equity in order to keep buying. Their infrastructure is falling apart and it seems more like a race to bottom. There's a balance between too much and too little tax. Republicans seem to have only one policy - cut taxes and the only way they can keep things going is to keep cutting. One day, there won't be anything left to cut, except for the military, and the country will then look like El Salvador.

    That's one thing that distinguishes countries where you can pay next to nothing in taxes - third world status. No taxes for roads, schools, honest policemen or judiciary, but the military always has enough to make sure no one complains too much. Just dog eat dog and that's what the US seems be headed towards.

    And the socialist label is a red herring. It's thrown out as if that ends the argument. Oh, they're "socialist" so that explains everything - nuff said. Canada can hardly be considered socialist. Norway is a very successful socialist country which proves there's no one right way to manage an economy.
  40. Hans Ulster from Destiny, Alberta, Canada writes: Michael Sharp from Crocus City, Canada writes: "M. Mark from Victoria, Canada writes: I'd like to see Clinton as president with Obama as her vice. What a great team that would make.' They would make great socially progressive strides forward and legalize sodomy. All hail the Brave New America! ----------- And there is a reality disconnect to hope for such a team. First, it is generally understood that the size of the U.S. government must shrink to reduce the debt. Yet, people think tacking on a trillion dollar government program and moving toward socialism will improve the economy? I don't get that. I can understand how a recommendation like that might be valid in peacetime, with a healthy economy. But recommending massive increases in federal spending during wartime and during a period of economic instability is just plain fool-hardy. Of course, many think the war is just an illusion, but a president has to assume that the enemy may yet try unconventional attacks, etc. Further, increased taxes are a prerequisite for national healthcare. Will this slow economic growth? Has anyone even bothered to look into the macroeconomic issues involved? Does this also now mean that the trillion dollar soon to collapse Social Security and Medicare will not be discussed? Methinks someone hasn't debated these issues beyond a 2-minute statement. Of course, poor people will want free stuff! jsut like we already have a cure for AIDS (don't have unsafe sex), the Yanks already have a cure for no healthcare: GET A JOB. See? No government program required. (Although kids should be covered if they are unfortunate enough to have parents who don't like work.) Anyway, where does the money come from?
  41. Tyler Williams from seattle, United States writes: Interesting.

    JPM from Canada writes that Bill Clinton did not "destabilize the geopolitical landscape, or inspire hatred and distrust of America across huge swaths of the globe".

    Actually, Bill Clinton did indeed do those things, and in fact he did them in the only areas that the hatred really mattered to the US at the time:

    1. He supported Israel in ways enraging political Islamist thugs.
    2. Supported US bases in Saudi Arabia in ways enraging those Islamist thugs.
    3. Favored westernization of various governments in Middle East, enraging those Islamist thugs.
    4. Supported US embassies and involvement in Middle East and Africa, enraging those Islamist thugs.
    5. Supported relationships with governments despised by Islamist thugs.
    6. Maintained US military presence in Gulf and off coasts of region, enraging those Islamist thugs.
    7. Maintained crushing embargo and aircraft attacks against Iraq, enraging those Islamist thugs.
    8. Bombed factories using bomber aircraft in Sudan, enraging Islamist thugs.
    9. Enacted a "wanted dead or alive" approach to bin Laden: Ordered a freeze on assets that could be linked to bin Laden and signed an executive order authorizing Laden's arrest or assassination, thus enraging those political Islamist thugs.

    So Bill Clinton's actions absolutely enraged the political Islamist thugs, who ultimately planned the 9/11 attacks during his presidency.

    That does not mean that all of Clinton's actions were wrong: But his actions certainly fueled and inspired the hatred and distrust, of America's actions across the vast swaths of the globe that mattered to those politically destabilizing Islamist thugs, amongst those politically destabilizing Islamist thugs...

    ...who then, enraged, enacted 9/11....
  42. k st-pierre from toronto, Canada writes: Hans Ulster- You need a history lesson son! I find it funny that CON supporters whine about Clinton and OBL/Saddam but no recriminations for the Repubs that helped put them in power, fund them, gave them intel and equipment. Guess your contact at the RNC never told you THAT part of the story. And yeah your right, NO-ONE in recorded history ever was killed or killed to make money or eliminate a political rival. Right. Just another liberal "conspiracy" theory I guess. And your from Alberta? Quelle surprise.
  43. Hans Ulster from Destiny, Alberta, Canada writes: k st-pierre from toronto, Canada writes: Quin Bareth- How does cutting taxes "improve" revenue? Has Bush's cuts helped revenue now?

    -----------

    Revenue coming in to the Treasury has steadily increased since 2001.
  44. Tim Rutkevich from Canada writes: Presidential campaign is all about good strategy. The dead lock between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama shows that their camps don't have good strategic minds like Rove. They are both all over each other while competing for the same constituency. While Obama captivated youth, his defeat will turn the same youth off voting. _________________________________________________________________________ Mr. McCain without attracting too much attention occupied the Center. To consolidate Republican base all he needs is to offer Vice presidency to Huckabee. I would like that type of polarity it would bring to the presidency.
  45. Hans Ulster from Destiny, Alberta, Canada writes: k st-pierre from toronto, Canada writes: Hans Ulster- Guess your contact at the RNC never told you THAT part of the story. And yeah your right, NO-ONE in recorded history ever was killed or killed to make money or eliminate a political rival. Right. Just another liberal "conspiracy" theory I guess. And your from Alberta? Quelle surprise.

    -------

    See more conspiracy theories! HAHAHA. Now, I am an RNC plant because I have the audacity to not believe in your conspiracy nonsense. You prove my points by turning around and starting another conspiracy theory. If you were smarter you would see the irony.
  46. B G from Vancouver, Canada writes: where's the Ron Paul crowd today? Robert Miller - I marked your words yesterday as requested. Seems your boy came up a little short of the three states you predicted he'd win. Let me guess....the man is keepin' him down?
  47. Mr. Justice from Canada writes: Tyler: . . . WRONG. If you knew anything at all about religious folks in the US, you'd know that the term "Bible-believin' Christian" has a particular connotation, and it is always conservative.

    Try reading a book, or at least paying attention.

    I would give you a primer on US history and US politics, but I really don't have the time for that.
  48. Hans Ulster from Destiny, Alberta, Canada writes: And yet nobody can answer how Washington's fiscal record will improve by adding another massive federal bureaucracy (healthcare) without tending to Social Security and Medicare. Further, nobody can seemingly answer how the health of the American economy will improve by raising taxes across the board to fund said healthcare.

    I would hope that either Obama or Clinton could answer these questions. Or would that be unfair to ask?

    And the past history re Iraq is pointless to debate. Neither Obama or Hillary advocate an immediate withdrawal because even they both understand the catastrophe that would ensue, unlike some posters here.

    Immediate withdrawal = regional war in the Middle East.
    "Free Healthcare" = crushing burden on troubled economy when existing programs haven't even been dealt with.

    The home example of this would be having six credit cards, all maxed out. And then smiling and getting another credit card.
  49. Tyler Williams from seattle, United States writes: Interesting.

    Mr Justice seems frustrated that the contents are correct in my 11:59 and 12:22 posts - indeed, his frustration is evident in the incoherent projectile vomit that he typed at 2:10.
  50. Hans Ulster from Destiny, Alberta, Canada writes: Mr. Justice from Canada writes: Tyler: . . . WRONG. If you knew anything at all about religious folks in the US, you'd know that the term "Bible-believin' Christian" has a particular connotation, and it is always conservative.

    Try reading a book, or at least paying attention.

    I would give you a primer on US history and US politics, but I really don't have the time for that.

    -----------

    I really don't understand you point. Both Hillary and Obama are Christians too. So, unless you have a pre-existing anti-Christian bias, your post proves absolutely nothing and is merely hot air. So what? Given that something lilke 80 % of Yanks believe in one god or another, it is highly unlikely you will ever see a candidate spit on a Bible or trask talk believers.

    And, yes, you post, reads like it is some sort of negative that they have the audacity to be Christian. If that offends you so much, maybe you shouldn't bother posting on an American election? Perhaps you should debate exclusively on the Atheist Website. LOL.

    You think all those blacks who support Obama aren't Bible-believin' Christians too?
  51. Patrick King from Canada writes: Obama is about the old, the past, and is extremely divisive. His campaign strategy is a carbon copy of JFK in 1960. He is exploiting Hollywood celebrities to raise his profile, only that instead of Marilyn Monroe, he has Oprah Winfrey. But Oprah's supporters were too busy losing weight or too depressed to vote for Obama on Super Tuesday. Despite all of Obama's momentum, Hillary not only wins California by a comfortable margin, but she actually wins LA where Hollywood is. Similarly in Massachesetts, the ghost of JFK has spoken. Hillary wins by a wide margin even with the support of the unelectable Ted Kennedy and John Kerry. JFK has sent a clear message to his daughter Caroline that Obama is not his man. Obama claims his supporters are young, progressive and opt for change. In fact, any whites who vote for Obama are old conservatives, sexists and racists, who are resistant to change. Why? It's simple. It's people who cannot stand a woman as President, and who will only vote for a white male. So when John Edwards was in the game, they voted for Edwards. Now that Edwards is out, they have a difficult choice. There is no way they will elect a woman, so they vote for Obama because at least he is half-white, better than not at all. It is exactly because they do NOT want change. Now that the Kennedys and Hollywood have failed to help, Obama has to be judged on his own merits. It is funny I hear Obama say in his speech that he will win John McCain in a general election because they won't be able to say he did this or he did that. That's because he has never done anything significant. Why should the American people elect someone who is untested, for a change for the worse? I agree with Hillary when she said - whoever is elected as President will celebrate for one night. Reality will set in the next day with all its problems, domestic and foreign. The problems won't change, not anytime soon.
  52. k st-pierre from toronto, Canada writes: Hans Ulster- And this is directly related to tax cuts? So A 5% decrease in taxes has led to a 5% increase in revenue? So by your argument if I reduce payments to my student loan it will be paid down faster? The point I was making was where is the correlation for decrease in taxes leads to more revenue? Did other factors lead to increase in revenue (like more pop means more tax payers means more revenue)? Which had a greater affect? Tax cuts only definitely benefit a small percentage of the country, yet are passed off as the saving grace for everyone. Tax cuts are a pyramid scheme in this scenario (make me money now and it MIGHT make you money later).
  53. Mr. Justice from Canada writes: Tyler: PLEASE grow up . . . don't worry, you don't have to do it all at once.

    Meanwhile, I'll see to it that people pray for you.

    Cheers.
  54. Jeff Pritchard from Canada writes: k-st pierre: to my chagrin, I find I have no reason to post in this thread because you have already said everything I wanted to say.
  55. Mark H from Columbus, IN, United States writes: "Emma Hawthorne from Canada writes: To my knowledge all educated women are also supporting Hillary, and she was unfairly penalized by somewhat bogus caucuses yesterday as their vote-counts were too small to be reflective. Her position is significantly stronger than Obama's. In any event, neither the US nor the world can afford to have an inexperienced person at the wheel, ever again. Hillary has the track record, realistic foreign policy and an actual plan for universal medicare and access to education, whereas Obama's medicare plan, for example, leaves 20 million uninsured Americans out in the cold. Hillary's new America will give all citizens a chance at a good life and create a kindler, gentler country. Obama should serve as VP and run for pres. in 2016."

    Emma, honey, everybody in America right now has the chance at a good life. Most people squander that chance. Throwing more money at the problem in the form of universal health care "free" education (why is a huge expansion of government ALWAYS the solution for the Dems?) won't change anything, except the amount of my paycheck I get to keep.
  56. Wred Wight from This is not America, Canada writes: Tyler Williams from seattle, United States writes: Interesting.

    "So Bill Clinton's actions absolutely enraged the political Islamist thugs, who ultimately planned the 9/11 attacks during his presidency."

    "That does not mean that all of Clinton's actions were wrong: But his actions certainly fueled and inspired the hatred and distrust, of America's actions across the vast swaths of the globe that mattered to those politically destabilizing Islamist thugs, amongst those politically destabilizing Islamist thugs..."

    "...who then, enraged, enacted 9/11.... "

    Interesting, it would seem, given the facts as clearly pointed out by the erudite Mr Tyler Williams, that America was entirely responsible for the provocation(s) that resulted in the hell America finds itself today.
    Years of war and carnage and suffering on so many levels... what a brilliant accomplishment America.
  57. Hans Ulster from Destiny, Alberta, Canada writes: Tyler Williams from seattle, United States writes: Interesting.

    Mr Justice seems frustrated that the contents are correct in my 11:59 and 12:22 posts - indeed, his frustration is evident in the incoherent projectile vomit that he typed at 2:10.

    ---------

    Mr Justice forgets that all them knuckle-draggin' black Yanks who voted for Obama might actually be church-goers. And that they read from the same Bible as all them knuckle-draggin' white folks who suported Huck. LOL.

    I believe we have a campaigning genius in our midst. Trash talk Christians to get elected! Oops, I forgot that you can't win an election without their vote so demeaning them is probably a bit counter-productive.

    That is almost as obtuse as campaigning in Quebec but being against French speakers.
  58. Mark H from Columbus, IN, United States writes: "Mr. Justice from Canada writes: Tyler: . . . WRONG. If you knew anything at all about religious folks in the US, you'd know that the term "Bible-believin' Christian" has a particular connotation, and it is always conservative."

    So what if I told you that I'm politically independant, and can't stand any of the candidates left in the race (and couldn't stand most of them who are no longer in the race, to be fair)? Broad brush strokes leave a mess, so be careful in your generalizations. Also, using "bible-believin' Christians" as a perjorative probably isn't the sign of the strongest persuasive skills. Conservatives are pretty easy targets.
  59. J Kay from Canada writes: Hans Ulster: I beg to differ regarding the impact of Bush's tax cuts on government receipts. You are incorrect that receipts have increased every year since 2001. In fact receipts fell from 2000 to 2003 before recovering and only in 2007, did government tax receipts surpass those levels seen in 2000 and only on a nominal basis. They have not yet recovered on a real basis and are below revenues from 2000.

    Since the cuts were to individual taxes and the argument is that this will generate more tax from the same source (income taxes) lets first examine, the taxes generated from 2000 to 2007. The US personal income taxes generated were as follows (all numbers in billions): $1,004 (2000), $994 (2001), $858 (2002), $793 (2003), $808 (2004), $927 (2005), $1,043 (2006) and finally $1,163 (2007). So taxes only stated to grow again by 2003 and only recently in nominal terms surpassed 2000, but in real terms are still below.

    If we look at total tax revenue assuming that perhaps the revenues grew elsewhere substantially, we still see the exact same pattern with the following tax receipts (numbers in billions): $2,025 (2000), $1,991 (2001), $1,853 (2002), $1,782 (2003), $1,880 (2004), $2,153 (2005), $2,407 (2006) and lastly $2,568 (2007).

    This is hardly a strong argument for laffer curve style tax policy.
  60. Hans Ulster from Destiny, Alberta, Canada writes: k st-pierre from toronto, Canada writes: Hans Ulster- And this is directly related to tax cuts? So A 5% decrease in taxes has led to a 5% increase in revenue? So by your argument if I reduce payments to my student loan it will be paid down faster? The point I was making was where is the correlation for decrease in taxes leads to more revenue? Did other factors lead to increase in revenue (like more pop means more tax payers means more revenue)? Which had a greater affect? Tax cuts only definitely benefit a small percentage of the country, yet are passed off as the saving grace for everyone. Tax cuts are a pyramid scheme in this scenario (make me money now and it MIGHT make you money later).

    -=-------

    Last time I checked, I can spend my own money more efficiently than any government. And, yes, when businesses aren't burdened with crippling taxes they have more money to train its employees, upgrade plant equipment, etc. When consumers are taxed less they have more money to spend which spurs consumption.

    As an aside, the U.S. already has the highest corporate tax rate in the G8 and they should be talking about lowering taxes MORE.
  61. k st-pierre from toronto, Canada writes: Hans- My conspiracy theories? I was postulating a scenario based on reality. I know u CON supporters and their paid schills hate things like reality and logic, but what can I say. Its important. Irony- how about cutting revenue to increase revenue? Or is that schill "logic"? Don't project your anger on me because you have a job that both telemarketers and used car sales people look down on!!:) You definitely should have paid more attention in school. Integrity is more than just a word you know. You should try it.
  62. Neil Garret from Canada writes: To those who tout Mrs. Clinton's experience - would you care to clarify if you are counting the decade as First Lady of Arkansa and the 8 years as US First Lady in the experience?
    There is a process called Osmosis . maybe that was in play - as she learned how to become the President by being married to one.

    That is not the irony. The irony is the lies, obfuscation and knee-capping Billary indulges in - to take out Obama .

    The same old class warfare. The same old gender and race politics.
    The 2-headed monster Billary is never going to change.
  63. Tim Rutkevich from Canada writes: Here is a scary photo: http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/POD/2008/01/16/clintonbig.jpg
  64. Cheryl Nelson from Bloomington, MN, United States writes: M. Mark from Victoria, Canada writes: I'd like to see Clinton as president with Obama as her vice. What a great team that would make. _______I can't see this one happening. Hillary Clinton was born and raised in suburban Chicago. Barack Obama began his political career in Chicago and is the sitting junior senator representing Illinois. U.S. political parties strive for geographical diversity when nominating their candidates for the November ballot. This is to make the party's candidate more appealling in a region where the party as a whole lacks appeal. It's too bad. Under different personal history circumstances, Obama would be a great choice for Clinton if she were to win the nomination. With circumstances in mind, John Edwards would be the logical vice presidential candidate, regardless of who wins the presidential nomination. Edwards was born and raised in South Carolina. He earned his law degree in North Carolina, where he went on to become the state's junior senator before launching his 2004 presidential bid. I think he also would make a fine VP candidate - almost as appealing on the stump as Obama.
  65. Hans Ulster from Destiny, Alberta, Canada writes: J Kay from Canada writes: Hans Ulster: I beg to differ regarding the impact of Bush's tax cuts on government receipts. You are incorrect that receipts have increased every year since 2001. In fact receipts fell from 2000 to 2003 before recovering and only in 2007, did government tax receipts surpass those levels seen in 2000 and only on a nominal basis. They have not yet recovered on a real basis and are below revenues from 2000. Since the cuts were to individual taxes and the argument is that this will generate more tax from the same source (income taxes) lets first examine, the taxes generated from 2000 to 2007. The US personal income taxes generated were as follows (all numbers in billions): $1,004 (2000), $994 (2001), $858 (2002), $793 (2003), $808 (2004), $927 (2005), $1,043 (2006) and finally $1,163 (2007). So taxes only stated to grow again by 2003 and only recently in nominal terms surpassed 2000, but in real terms are still below. If we look at total tax revenue assuming that perhaps the revenues grew elsewhere substantially, we still see the exact same pattern with the following tax receipts (numbers in billions): $2,025 (2000), $1,991 (2001), $1,853 (2002), $1,782 (2003), $1,880 (2004), $2,153 (2005), $2,407 (2006) and lastly $2,568 (2007). This is hardly a strong argument for laffer curve style tax policy. -=--------- Uh, the tax cuts were only signed into law in 2003 so by your own numbers, revenue increased.
  66. Mr. Justice from Canada writes: . . . and the deficit in the US has actually shrunk. More lies.
  67. Tyler Williams from seattle, United States writes: Interesting.

    Wred Wight from Canada appears, weirdly, to be trying to infer a meaning that was not contained in - or even implied by - my 1:55 post.

    Wred Wight seems to want to believe that my post meant that Bill Clinton was responsible for 9/11. To the contrary, my post neither stated nor implied any such thing.

    The commentary of Wred Wight is as ridiculous as if one were to hold Pierre Trudeau responsible for murder and kidnapping (since FLQ extremists, enraged by Trudeau's federalist policies, reacted by kidnapping and murdering in hopes of furthering their own political cause).
  68. Esker Doon from Montreal, Canada writes: Interesting,

    McCain looks like Dr. Evil in the photo.
  69. Hans Ulster from Destiny, Alberta, Canada writes: Mr. Justice from Canada writes: . . . and the deficit in the US has actually shrunk. More lies.

    ----------

    I never mentioned the deficit. So exactly how am I "lying"? I said that revenues to the Treasury INCREASED substantially after the 2003 tax cuts. And they DID. The deficit increased because spending continued to rise, which is a totally different issue than revenue coming in.

    Maybe if you worked on reading comprehension everything wouldn't be a lie to you.
  70. Jeff Pritchard from Canada writes: Mark H from Columbus, IN, United States writes: Emma, honey, everybody in America right now has the chance at a good life.

    >>>

    HAHA, good one Mark H.
  71. B Fulsom from Menlo Park, United States writes: Emma Hawthorne, I agree. No matter how you slice it, Clinton is leading the delegate count and that's all that matters.

    The media keeps spinning with things like "Obama won 13 states" (meaningless statement due to less than 1% margins in NM and MO, and proportional rep.) and "Obama has the momentum" (despite HRC likely picking up more delegates on Super Tuesday). Big endorsement from the Kennedy's: BHO loses MA by 15% and got nowhere with the Latino vote. Huge rally with Oprah: BHO loses CA by 10%. Zogby released a poll before the vote saying BHO would win CA by 6%! And remember the hype around NH? Weren't we told Obama would roll over Clinton easily?

    Just wait, after the large black populations of small states like LA, MD, and DC propel Obama to strawman victories this week, they'll be shouting that his momentum is unstoppable. Meanwhile Hillary will quietly take TX and PA and continue to inch ahead. And don't forget about her FL and MI insurance policy. And her lead in the super-delegates.
  72. Hans Ulster from Destiny, Alberta, Canada writes: Jeff Pritchard from Canada writes: Mark H from Columbus, IN, United States writes: Emma, honey, everybody in America right now has the chance at a good life.

    >>>

    HAHA, good one Mark H.

    -----------

    Are you implying that there are structural impediments that prevent people from moving up the income ladder? How come these impediments didn't effect people who were born of limited means like Bill Clinton, Huckabee, Edwards or Obama? If someone want to succeed they can and are still only limited by THEMSELVES.

    Just looking at the success of Huckabee and Obama last night....their succeesses last night shatters your sarcastic statement. Or Huck would be sitting in a trailer drinking moonshine and Obama would be running crack in a ghetto.
  73. Quinn Barreth from Canada writes: s like and k st. pierre

    My point about cutting taxes is that with more money in the hands of the people who earned it, more money gets spent and thus more revenue collected by various sales taxes, consumptive taxes etc. There was this guy in gov't in Canada, what was his name, oh yeah, Paul Martin, who used this tack to great success (end of deficits, etc.).

    Take your focus off your hatred for anything American (k st p) and look up - Germany, Sweden, France, etc are all countries that are using this to great success. The problem with Mr. Bush (one among many) is that while he was cutting taxes he was putting ruinous economic policy into place as well.

    s like, at least I can see that you have a sense of what is really happening instead of spouting university inspired marxist lines. I encourage you to look into what positive effects tax cuts can have (coupled with gov't reduction of course).
  74. Hans Ulster from Destiny, Alberta, Canada writes: B Fulsom from Menlo Park, United States writes: Emma Hawthorne, I agree. No matter how you slice it, Clinton is leading the delegate count and that's all that matters.

    The media keeps spinning with things like "Obama won 13 states" (meaningless statement due to less than 1% margins in NM and MO, and proportional rep.) and "Obama has the momentum" (despite HRC likely picking up more delegates on Super Tuesday). Big endorsement from the Kennedy's: BHO loses MA by 15% and got nowhere with the Latino vote. Huge rally with Oprah: BHO loses CA by 10%. Zogby released a poll before the vote saying BHO would win CA by 6%! And remember the hype around NH? Weren't we told Obama would roll over Clinton easily?

    ----------

    Well, maybe now we can talk about Asian and Latino racism against blacks. Using the California example, it appears as though folks are voting for candidates overwhelming along racial lines. Oddly enough, it is the whites who seem more likely to vote for a black than either Asians or Latinos.

    Must. Study. The. Data. And, if blacks are overwhelming voting for Obama, is that not a sign of racism and sexism? Ouch.
  75. Tim Rutkevich from Canada writes: Enjoy discussing Clinton and Obama. They will be forgotten history a year from now.
  76. B Fulsom from Menlo Park, United States writes: Hans Ulster, I already commented on this under Ibbitson's column.
  77. B Fulsom from Menlo Park, United States writes: Hans Ulster, to wit:

    You can't speak about that in polite company. Is it a coincidence that women are voting for the female candidate, blacks for the African American candidate, and seniors for the old white Republican?

    Pundits on CNN and NPR stutter over "African American" instead "black" and "Latino" instead of "Hispanic", but they'll tell us that identity politics doesn't exist; that Obama transcends race; that Bill Clinton shouldn't be talking about it.

    Meanwhile between two candidates that share virtually identical campaign platforms, Latinos voted 70/30 for one, and blacks an incredible 9-to-1 for the other. It's no stretch to predict that states with greater than 20% black population (LA, MD, DC) will go to Obama, and that Latinos will deliver TX and the southwest to Clinton. White Democrats will continue to split the vote and pat themselves on the back for successfully ignoring that any such issues still exist in this country.

    Sorry folks, but someone needed to say it.
  78. Hans Ulster from Destiny, Alberta, Canada writes: B Fulsom from Menlo Park, United States writes: Hans Ulster, I already commented on this under Ibbitson's column.

    -----

    On what?
  79. Cheryl Nelson from Bloomington, MN, United States writes: Don Portz from Trochu, AB, Canada writes: Watching TV yeaterday with interviews with two former US ambaassadors to Canada state that we will be better off with McCain than Clinton or Obama. The reason stated being the proposed protectionist policies, eliminationof NAFTA etc. (also reference by Obama to the PRESIDENT of Canada).However, in any event the people of the US will decide which is only correct. ___________ I wish you had indicated the identity of the two former U.S. ambassadors. In any event, I can't see NAFTA being completely thrown by the wayside, regardless of who wins the Democratic nomination. After all, it was Bill Clinton, a Dem, who supported NAFTA and signed it into law. I have no doubt that changes to NAFTA will be proposed. Either candidate may well propose measures to make it harder for U.S. manufacturers to move their plants to Mexico - making it harder for them to ditch their American workforces without warning or "parachute". Most likely this could spell the end of tax breaks that U.S. firms receive when relocating their operations anywhere overseas - something that would not limit the reforms to NAFTA. Actual trade of goods and services will probably continue as usual.
  80. Hans Ulster from Destiny, Alberta, Canada writes: You are right, Fulsom. It would appear as if certain people are voting exclusively on the identity of the candidate (woman or black), rather than on their policies. Harsh, but true.

    I know that when I was in California, it was the Asians and the Latinos who were the most anti-black. Not the whites. I have a feeling this election is going to shatter some of the previously held misconceptions about America.

    As an aside, I couldn't imagine ever voting for a candidate exclusively because of their party affiliation or skin colour or sex. For me, it is always about policy and, by looking at last night's demographic breakdown, it would appear as if I am in the minority.

    And, on the Republican side, I wonder how many votes Romney didn't get just because he is a Mormon minority? And, even though he is most qualified to handle economics issues, still can't carry a state that Huck, a Baptist, wins without trying?

    This election is bizarre.