Not content to let my little JoePa-is-old joke stand (mainly because I love the man), I did a donor search on opensecrets and it looks like the only candidate he gave to this cycle was Obama ($250).

That's probably not him, but his son Jay. Jay publicly came out in favor of Obama and spoke at the little opening event for Obama's office in State College.

Unfortunately, I don't think that helps Obama. Jay gets blamed for everything by the fans - unfairly I think.


I've done that open secrets search on JoePa before. He doesn't give much. He gave some to each of the Bush's, but the last real candidate he gave money to was Lamar Alexander, as I recall.

And I am the Life wrote:

QUOTE:
We went to see 42st in the point for my sisters 9th birthday.

I saw it either four or five times in London, including the penultimate performance.

QUOTE:
Is 42nd street a sort of compilation best of musical?

Yes, as ua says. There's large swathes of the greatest film ever made, Golddiggers Of 1933, in there. I remember the first time that I watched it being amazed that all these wonderful songs and dances were being done in colour; I was so used to the black-and-white of the films...

She was just the farmers daughter,
And the salesman made his sale.
But what she got, she didn't order
And you can't return by mail.
To the church her daddy got him
With some buckshot in his bottom
How could he say no
So they have to shuffle
Shuffle off to buffalo.

QUOTE:
The Democratic frontrunner was also asked to respond to a videotaped question from a woman asking whether he believed in the American flag because of his refusal to wear a lapel pin. Obama said it was a "manufactured issue".

How do you answer that? Well done to Obama for not resorting to the obvious sarcastic response.

And HRC just forgot to tell the truth. Just slipped her mind, did it?

I'm more pissed off with the moderators than Hillary, although she hardly covered herself in glory. It took them an hour to ask a single policy question.

I am becoming more and more pessimistic about the outcome of the general election every day.

This might sound daft, but this year is the first time that I've ever heard the US Presidential elections being referred to as a "general election". Has something changed or have I just been not paying attention for the last forty years? (Which is not beyond the bounds of possibility...)

QUOTE:
I'm more pissed off with the moderators than Hillary, although she hardly covered herself in glory. It took them an hour to ask a single policy question.

I agree. I'm still in a seething rage over the debate, and it's hard to blame Clinton. I'm tempted to use the scorpion/frog analogy (which also works for UA's comment, as surely the whole Dem lot is going to drown), although the metaphor would fit better if there was a brain-damaged duck floating next to them egging the scorpion on.

I think this post expresses my thoughts much more coherently than I could (although I would have used much more profanity, coherence be damned).

GO, we've always called the real thing in November the "general election". We need a term to distinguish it from the dog's breakfast of primaries, caucuses, run-offs, special elections and local elections that fill the rest of a political year like this one.

It is likely the case that the term is getting more attention now because the Democratic race has become even more focused than usual on the question of which candidate has the better chance to win in November.

That's an excellent rant, Gyuri. Bunch should be writing for a better paper than the Philly Daily News.

I only watched about 10 minutes--it was abysmal.

Apparently Hillary has an even higher threshold for what it takes to be 'upper class,' or at least above 'middle class' than Charles Gibson--she said she would not raise taxes on middle class Americans, who she defined as people making uo to $250,000 a year. In an earlier debate, Gibson infamously said rolling back Bush's tax cuts would hurt middle class families, like people making $200k.

I've just about given up hope. Hillary's going to take this somehow. I said it after Texas/Ohio, but I didn't feel it as strongly as I do now.

This makes me halfway hopeful:

QUOTE:
One of the night's most popular answers, according to WPVI's undecided voter reaction tracker thingy, was this response by Obama to a question about his relationship to former Weather Underground bomber William Ayers:

George, but this is an example of what I'm talking about.

This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.

And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense, George. ...

[T]his kind of game, in which anybody who I know, regardless of how flimsy the relationship is, is somehow -- somehow their ideas could be attributed to me -- I think the American people are smarter than that. They're not going to suggest somehow that that is reflective of my views, because it obviously isn't.

Hillary's response? "Well, I think that is a fair general statement, but I also believe that Senator Obama served on a board with Mr. Ayers for a period of time, the Woods Foundation, which was a paid directorship position." The undecided-voter meter plummeted.

Inca - she can't win. There's actually no way at all that she can win, beyond bare mathematical possibilities.

She can hand it to McCain, but she can't win. In the last month, supers have broken about 4-to-1 in favour of Obama. She needs to win the remainder by about that margin, by persuading them to abandon the African-American vote for at least a generation. Or to win every remaining state by massively improbable margins. It's not going to happen.

I basically agree with toro, the only real chance for Clinton is for Obama to both fall drastically in the polls and to lose to Clinton significantly (15%+) in nearly all of the remaining states.

That being said, the general election is looking worse every day and I think Clinton is, at least sub-consciously, playing for 2012.

This campaign should be the death of anyone who helped the dems during the 90s. As you see the cavalcade of cunts that is the Hilary campaign and the dems establishment, for the first time, I realise with crystal clarity the whole 'I'm voting Nader' in 2000 move. I'd have done the same if I'd have seen these bastards close up.